The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

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

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

My question was for the Premier, but he is not here, so I will direct it to the deputy Premier.

MR. ROBERTS: There is no, deputy Premier.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader. On November 24, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation announced drastic increases to the interprovincial ferry rates and, in particular, to the Bell Island ferry service. Will you, in place of the Premier today, confirm that this is a change in government policy relating to the ferry system being treated as an extension to the provincial road system and indeed that the government is now breaking a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador living on all our islands?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not in St. John's so he won't be here in the House today. I will make an initial response. I will certainly make no such confirmation as the hon. gentleman invites me to make because his statement is not correct. What I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to respond to the realities and I will go further and say that if our predecessors in office had responded to realities, the realities would not be nearly as grim as faces today.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, has many problems, not the least of them which is the fact that he tends to open his mouth and close his mind.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back - the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern asked a serious question and I am quite prepared, indeed anxious, to try to deal with the question on its merits. The fact remains, we have to deal with the realities and these include changes from time to time in the rates which we charge for public services. Now, my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who at present is on the CBC Open Line Show, is the one most intimately aware of the information and I will defer to him on details, but let me say to my hon. friend, the Member for St. John's East Extern, that we will have to deal with realities. We shall do so with fairness and with balance, bearing in mind there can't be any free lunch in this Province. We, as a Province, the whole Province, all of us together, have to pay our way, Sir.

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

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

I will say that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would not confirm a change in policy yesterday, but the Premier did, across the House, confirm that it was a change in government policy.

My second question to the Minister of Justice: This new policy directly affects the people living on Bell Island. In particular, students are now paying one dollar a day. We will see rates go to $4.50 per day, $22.50 per week and approximately $100. per month. This new policy also affects tourism and jobs. Due to these drastic increases, will the Government House Leader, direct the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to review these new rates as they relate to Bell Island?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Justice won't direct any minister to do anything. What I will say is that the concerns which my hon. friend, the Member for St. John's East Extern voices have been raised long before this, by my friend and colleague, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, and these issues are being addressed.

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

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

I would like to correct the Minister of Justice. I brought this up in the House of Assembly on Monday, long before the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island became involved.

Anyway, I will ask the Minister of Justice: Many of this government's policies since 1989 have been an attack on rural Newfoundland. This new policy relating to the increase in ferry rates will be very hard on all livyers on all islands in Newfoundland and Labrador. Isn't this policy just another form of forced resettlement?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no. It is not an instance of resettlement forced or otherwise. What we are confronted with, is a situation where we must pay our own way and if people in one part of the Province are being asked to subsidize people in another part of the Province, which is a principle we endorsed, a principle we apply throughout the government service, then it must be done on a rational, fair and balanced basis.

The hon. gentleman, the Member for St. John's East Extern appears to be taking the position that any change anywhere is unacceptable in itself. I suggest, instead, Sir, the proper role for the government of this Province is to look in a proper way to consider the balance between resources and needs and try to strike the appropriate balance between them.

I would say to him further, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are fully aware of this and support this approach and indeed have endorsed it time and time again.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board. My questions are about government staffing, staffing to relieve or fill in for public servants who are on leave.

Has Treasury Board recently issued a directive to any department or branch of the government putting a halt to calling back workers on a part-time casual basis to fill in for or relieve full-time employees who are off on leave, and if such a directive has been issued, why?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board secretariat issued a directive to all government departments and agencies within the last several weeks, a directive not to fill any positions whatsoever in the public service without the consent of Treasury Board.

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

MS VERGE: The minister, perhaps, misunderstood my question so I will rephrase it. Has the minister, or has Treasury Board, directed departments, or any department of the government, not to call back workers on a part-time casual basis to relieve permanent public servants who are on leave?

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

MR. DICKS: No, we have not issued a directive in that form. I do not know how departments may be interpreting it, but to my knowledge the only directive we have issued relative to the issue the hon. member seems to be raising, is that we have told departments not to fill any positions. We have an absolute hiring freeze on until we determine what we have to do to find this $60 million. Whether or not departments may be interpreting that so that they cannot recall relief staff if someone is sick, if that is what the hon. member is suggesting, I do not know. I am not aware of that. Our intention was that there be no hiring to permanent or temporary positions until we have the whole issue resolved as to what, if any, steps government has to take to reduce the expenditures to bring the Budget in line with the balance.

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

MS VERGE: In the absence of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation I will ask my next question once again to the President of Treasury Board. Would the President of Treasury Board find out and report to the House about recent practices of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation involving paying full-time employees time and a half for overtime instead of bringing in workers from the callback lists? I ask the minister to investigate particularly recent instances of Works, Services and Transportation paying full-time security guards time and a half at over $18.00 an hour when call in workers were available at about $11.00 an hour, and would he look at other branches of government to see if similar practices are occurring and indicate just how much more money has been laid out because of this smoke and mirrors directive?

I might add that people affected are being told that this practice has come about because of a directive from Treasury Board.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just say to the hon. member, I don't know when my colleague will be back in the House. I think the practices of each department are best answered by the ministers concerned.

However, having said that I can tell her that the thrust of Treasury Board and most departmental management that I've seen is in the opposite direction. What we've been doing is attempting to reduce overtime. That goes back quite some time. For instance, when I was Minister of Justice before my colleague, the current Minister of Justice, took over back in 1991 we for example hired an additional number of security people down at the Penitentiary to avoid the labour call back in that particular area. We feel that the use of casual and part-time employees in fact reduced the overtime burden.

Also, for instance, at the Constabulary and the Sheriff's Office at that time, and my colleague has continued in that vein, we hired people to do specific tasks such as secretarial work and security work so that police officers could be free to do their regular duties, which are deemed to be more necessary.

So if anything, the thrust of government is not to diminish the number of call back and casual workers, but to suggest to departments that if necessary, rather than use overtime, they have sufficient people on call back to diminish the need for overtime. But certainly I will confer with my colleague the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who is not here today and certainly we will provide the information. I will certainly provide the information or my colleague will.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the past couple of weeks I've asked questions to the Minister of Social Services relating to youth corrections in this Province. While the minister stands in her place each day and answers that everything is under review, she then returns the next day with a carefully worded bureaucratic answer to the previous day's questions.

On Monday November 27 I asked the minister, and Hansard will show, for conformation of a suspension of an administrator at the youth care centre. I did not say the administrator, I said an administrator. Small words with huge differences. The bureaucratic answer that the minister read called my questions irresponsible misinformation, and lambasted me for causing the administrator of Whitbourne embarrassment. I call the minister's answer verbal trickery. She can use those words to discredit me, but I assure this House and the public -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: I assure this House and the public that my information is not only responsible but it is correct. I will now ask the minister the same question I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I will now ask the minister the same question I asked her on Monday, and I ask her to come clean with the facts this time. Has there been -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Has there been an administrator who was responsible for youth corrections in this Province suspended with pay or terminated recently by her department?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is one administrator, and that administrator is currently employed at the Whitbourne Youth Centre and has not been dismissed.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the minister is not true. There is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. I definitely heard the hon. member make an unparliamentary comment, and I ask him to withdraw it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I once again say to the minister, I did not say Whitbourne. I asked the minister: Was there an administrator who was responsible for youth corrections in this Province suspended with pay or terminated recently by her department? I ask the minister once again: Was there an administrator? And I ask the minister: Was there a valid reason for this suspension or termination? The minister knows full well what I am talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a sheet here, and it lists all the positions for the employment at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre, and that includes the remand centre here at St. John's. There is one administrator for the whole operation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the definition of administrator is a person having administrative or managerial authority in an organization. I ask the minister once again, and I ask the minister in all sincerity: Has there been a suspension or a termination of an administrator who is involved in youth corrections in this Province who fits the description of management or administrator in your department?

Mr. Speaker, the minister is fully aware that there has been a suspension, and I ask the minister to come clean with the facts today.

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the hon. member that I will not discuss any terminations or any suspensions of employment in this House. These are individual cases. It is a matter between the employer and the employee and I will not discuss them in the House.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I sat here yesterday and listened to the minister more or less say that my information was misinformation. I guess this comes to light today that I was not wrong after all. I ask the minister, as party to this, at the Whitbourne Youth Centre there are four facility operation managers, one of these managers has been away from regular duties for the past two or three months carrying out an internal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and other allegations. Can the minister confirm that this investigation is now complete and that she has been presented with a report on the situation?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, any matters of suspension or termination of employment, with my department, will not be discussed in the House of Assembly by me, if there are cases that do come out and there are suspensions throughout government and termination of employment throughout government at any given time. If there are any given cases that go before the court then that becomes public knowledge but as for me getting up in the House of Assembly and discussing matters of confidentiality, I refuse to do that. I am absolutely surprised, only last week I was accused of leaking confidential information to a fax machine and now I am being asked to disclose confidential information regarding an employee/employer relationship.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I too was surprised yesterday when the minister got up in the House of Assembly and basically said that the questions I was asking were misinformation. I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I say in all sincerity, I am not asking for details, I am asking the minister to confirm, I am just asking her to confirm that there has been a suspension or a termination of an administrator. I am not asking her for details I am asking her for a confirmation of a suspension or a termination. I will ask the minister once again, will she tell the House that there has been a suspension or a termination?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly suggest that the member from the opposite side have his hearing checked because I have answered his question at least three or four times today.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question I guess goes to the Government House Leader in the absence of the Premier.

As he may be aware, air traffic control across the nation is about to be privatised. In about two weeks the federal government will completely privatise all air traffic control services. Let me ask the Government House Leader, has the government spoken either with the Prime Minister's office, the Prime Minister or Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet to discuss the impact of such privatization on this Province, specifically in Gander?

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

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Government House Leader this question, then: Can he disclose today, or will he confirm, that the privatization initiative that is being undertaken by the Department of Transportation federally will have a negative impact on the Town of Gander, and we could see possible jobs eliminated or moved to other parts of the nation as a result of such privatization. Can the minister confirm that, and if he can, can he also, when he stands, elaborate on what the discussions with the federal government, either the federal minister, Mr. Tobin, or with the Prime Minister's office have been.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm what the federal government are doing or not doing. They make their own announcements, and they assume responsibility for their decisions.

We have, in a number of ways, expressed concern - the hon. gentleman's second question I could answer simply with a `yes', because all he asked was could I, and then he went on for a long time describing what I could or could not do, but let me say that we have expressed - the Premier has expressed in correspondence with the Prime Minister, and I have, in correspondence with the Minister of National Defence and meetings with the Minister of Transport, expressed - on behalf of the government, very real concerns about proposals by the Government of Canada.

Now what I am not prepared to do, for obvious and appropriate reasons, is get into a public discussion of where we are going, but we have expressed very real concerns, not just with the proposals with respect to the privatization of some aspects of air transport services, including navigation services, but the whole range of proposals by the Government of Canada to bring about changes, some of which are, in fact, under way now in the means by which they deliver and provide transportation services to this Province, very real and continuing concerns, Sir.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the problem with this provincial government is that they are not willing to discuss publicly any issue that negatively affects this Province and the loss of jobs therein.

Can the minister confirm that once privatization takes place with a company called Nav Canada, that all air traffic controllers presently now employed in Gander stand to either lose their positions or have to relocate to possibly Moncton, New Brunswick. There are, I think, some 250 air traffic controllers in Gander right now. Can the minister confirm that?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. gentleman, when he reads the Hansard transcription of that he will find that it is a mishmash of questions, and really I cannot answer them in any intelligible way.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the hon. gentleman from Kilbride is the one who is asking the questions, and I say to my friend from Ferryland, if he wants to ask a question he should try to catch the Speaker's eye and then ask it and we will try to answer it.

If my hon. friend from Kilbride wishes to rephrase the questions and put them coherently, or one or two at a time, I will try to answer them, but if he reads Hansard, or anybody else who reads Hansard, will find out that what he has is a mishmash, and it is impossible to answer a mishmash with anything other than a mashmish, and I am not prepared to do that.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me stoop down to the minister's level for a moment and ask him a simple question so that he can simply understand it. Will 250 jobs disappear in the Town of Gander as a result of privatization of air traffic control services, yes or no? Does the minister understand that?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must have been watching too much Perry Mason on television, when he goes on with this, `answer yes or no'.

I have no knowledge whether 250 jobs will disappear or not. I do not know whether there are 250 jobs there now. What I know is that the Government of Canada, through the Ministry of Transport, propose to make major changes in the way in which they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The usual relationship between the hon. gentleman from Kilbride and boots is when he puts his shoe in his mouth. He has asked his question; let me make the answer.

The answer is that the Government of Canada propose to make very real changes. We are concerned about those changes, and we are making representations in an effort to ensure that the changes are as acceptable as can be, and that they cause the greatest good to this Province, and not any harm. Whether we are successful or not remains to be seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, whether we are successful or not remains to be seen. If the hon. gentleman's ill humour and ill temper continue to get the better of him, then I say come and try again with another question and we will try to answer that too.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

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

A recent article in The Evening Telegram, Sunday, November 26, I am sure the minister read the article, his picture has accompanied it. The picture is on the second page and, Mr. Speaker, I will quote from that article, it says, and I quote: All nickel royalties will be dropped right back to the provincial budget and royalties from the estimated $30 billion ore deposit would more than make up a $200 million annual shortfall.

Can the minister confirm that these figures are correct?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of this. I didn't see the article. If the hon. member could pass it over I will have a look; it is certainly not a quote from me.

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

MR. A. SNOW: It was on two pages, page 15 had your picture, the figures were on page 16.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it is the same story. I thought the minister would have wanted to get the figures rather than be carried away with the picture, there is more to it, he should look at the figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

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

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board didn't get the question; maybe the Minister of Natural Resources could answer the question please.

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

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member appears to be referring to is not a quote, it is a comment and of course, the initial thing in reading newspapers is to see what is in quotation marks and what's not. It looks like the fourth last paragraph is a comment or part of the article by the reporter talking about the Voisey's Bay's nickel deposit and its potential royalties to the Province, and he deals with the fact that some of it may not come out of the equalization for the Province and I think the point was in this that we would lose less in equalization from that than we would in oil and gas revenues. That's not something that I quoted or said, and the issue of equalization is such that it varies, but I understand now, having looked at this, what the hon. member is referring to. Why the question was directed to me and what the hon. member's concern is, I don't understand but I will certainly address any concerns that I can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. SNOW: I did not say that the minister made those remarks. I said I quoted from the newspaper that the figures were in the newspaper and I asked the minister to confirm. Undoubtedly what is happening in this Province today, the Province undoubtedly has some sort of idea or at least they should have some sort of an idea in their budgetary process that's ongoing of how much revenue will be accruing from this ore deposit annually to this Province. That's the question, how much, is it $200 million?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

What the hon. member is asking to do is to speculate about a lot of things. One is the amount of ore that is going to be produced and processed there each year. The second thing is, what the world nickel price will be, copper price and I believe there is cobalt there as well. What it will yield on the world market and that price is very considerable even over the last decade. Thirdly, he is asking us to estimate the speed at which that will be produced. Considering the difficulty of forecasting over a six month or a one-year period, I don't think we can project out to the year 2001, 2002 when the mine may be up for production what the revenues to the Province will be.

Suffice it to say however, that it is a tremendous discovery and we expect that there will be some level of substantial royalties. What they are at this stage, I think it is too preliminary to say and predict, given those variables.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs will expect municipalities to know five years in advance what their revenues and expenditures are going to be, yet people of this Province are told that we are in dire financial straits with a $60 million deficit, and the Minister of Finance says he doesn't know how much revenue is going to be accruing from the greatest mineral deposit in this Province in our history.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I don't find it strange at all. The variable difference is that municipalities, to my knowledge, don't operate mines, they operate services, and we can project with some certainty where we expect those services to be and what the level of revenues will be. On something like this, and I point out to the hon. member, if he can tell me with exactitude what exactly the world nickel price will be, copper prices, and the price for cobalt, then we can apply a regime, too, and probably tell him what the royalties will be.

We can't tell him, however, what the Federal Government may have as equalization concerns at that time. All I can tell him is that by-and-large, any revenues to the Province result in a lessening of our equalizations, and it largely depends on the category. Mining is at a lesser figure than oil royalties and is a very variable thing. If he can tell with absolute certainty what they will be, then I will tell him, based on the current fiscal arrangements, what they will be. I can't guarantee that they will be the same in the year 2000, let alone the year 2020.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. SNOW: My supplementary question will be to the Minister of Natural Resources, who has a difference of opinion with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. The Minister of Natural Resources suggests that the mineral royalties from Voisey's Bay will not affect equalization payments, as the Minister of Finance suggests, so we all know now why there is a problem with the finances of this Province.

The people of this Province know that we are on the threshold of a tremendous mineral development in Voisey's Bay and we are also on the threshold of an oil development in Hibernia. Now, can the minister confirm that a Social Policy Committee of Cabinet leaders, and leaders from the Steel Workers Union, recently met and discussed the possibility of establishing a resource depletion fund, and is the government going to proceed with such a fund?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Social Policy Committee and I did not participate in any such meeting. My colleague to the left said he was in such a meeting and they did make such a recommendation to the committee. I know nothing further about it.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. There was some commentary in the media a few days ago with regard to the same project we are discussing, Voisey's Bay, some commentary from a representative of Inco which holds a considerable interest in the Voisey's Bay property. That particular company seemed to give an indication that we could mine this particular ore body and at least for some `interim period' ship the unprocessed ore overseas or to elsewhere in Canada.

I am wondering if the Minister of Natural Resources would confirm that as a realistic possibility?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. member to stay tuned. Inco knows, the world knows, and the people know, that we have taken a position on this, and this is going to be done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

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

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

My point of order is pertaining to the behaviour and activities of the Minister of Social Services yesterday and today. Yesterday, the minister responded to my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes when he asked the question: was an administrator - `an', A - N, not the administrator, an administrator, one of many, one of a number - under suspension without pay or with pay or terminated or whatever. The minister, of course, made light of that. For the record of the House, Mr. Speaker, and for the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - an administrator is a person having administrative or managerial authority in an organization, and a manager is a person having administrative or managerial authority in an organization - that is the definition of both.

What happened yesterday and again today is the minister is too slick by half and misled this House and accused the member of making false statements and putting out embarrassing information to this House and the Province, which one member of the media, by the way, picked up and carried. The minister knows full well that she knew what the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes was talking about, and she cannot be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to mislead this House. She doesn't have to answer the question, she can sit in her place and not rise, but she cannot mislead this House. I submit to Your Honour that that is a legitimate point of order.

The minister knew what the member was talking about and she should have at least had the decency to recognize that, but she didn't. I submit to Your Honour that a minister can't be allowed to exhibit such behaviour in this House and do this and then cause embarrassment to another member. That is the point of order I submit to Your Honour. The minister must be taken to task for it.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. The hon. gentleman makes a most serious charge and it is regrettable that he has no evidence to support it. I suggest, furthermore, the Hansard makes it clear that his charge is completely without foundation.

On Monday of this week - it is at page 2203 in the Hansard - the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked as his final supplementary: "I ask the minister, when she is reviewing, would she also find out and confirm to the House that there is an administrator at the Youth Care Centre who has been suspended with pay? I would like to ask the minister, can she confirm this now and explain the circumstances that surround the suspension of that person at this time?"

The hon. the minister: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker." Then the minister was interrupted. The next recording is Mr. Speaker recognized the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount who asked another question.

Now, that is what Hansard -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for Ferryland might allow me to make my remarks without his attempting - I really don't need his help. When I see where he is and where the rest of us are, I assure him, I don't need his help.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: When we came to the point yesterday in the House - and I am reading from page 2242 of yesterday's Hansard - when we came to the point where Your Honour called the order that says Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, the minister rose and said: "Yesterday, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked me to confirm that the administrator of the Youth Centre had been suspended...."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that is what she answered. She went on to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, she went on to make it very clear, and this is what she said - I'm reading the Hansard: "While I do not usually confirm or refute suspensions publicly, today, at the request of the administrator of the Youth Centre at Whitbourne, I will make an exception. The administrator has not been, and is not currently suspended by this department. Today he is performing his regular duties at the centre. In light of the embarrassment this irresponsible misinformation has caused the individual, I would again invite the member to visit the youth centre, to interview staff and residents, and to develop a better understanding of the whole operation."

Now, Mr. Speaker, it appears to be the case that hon. members opposite feel the minister did not answer the question. That is a matter for them to judge. Whether she did or not, Mr. Speaker, is a matter for debate and there is an appropriate way to do it. What is clear is the minister did not mislead the House intentionally or accidentally. Her answer is perfectly clear. If there is any confusion in it, it is the inept questioning of the gentleman from St. Mary's - The Capes but the minister, Mr. Speaker, did not mislead this House. Her answer is clear and I suggest there has been no evidence suggested that it is anything other then the complete truth. Thank you, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the Opposition House Leader under advisement and I will rule later.

MR. ROBERTS: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West stands up and says I know that `she' referring to the minister, misled the House. Now he is accusing both of us of telling untruths. I would ask Your Honour to ask him once again to withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear any comment that was made by the hon. member but I am sure if the hon. member made a comment that is unparliamentary he will withdraw. The Chair did not hear the comments made by the hon. member and I would assume -

Order, please!

The Chair did not hear the hon. member make any comment. I am sure that if the hon. member made an unparliamentary comment he will withdraw it.

Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to a petition sent to me and signed by residents of my district. The prayer of the petition says that; we the undersigned residents of the district of Menihek; and

WHEREAS because of budgetary restraint, new school busing proposals are unrealistic and dangerous; and

WHEREAS extreme climatic conditions and local conditions force students to use school buses;

THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the government allocate necessary funding to permit the continuing operation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Menihek. I would ask hon. members to my left if they could let the hon. member be heard.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue with the prayer of the petition.

THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the government allocate necessary funding to permit the continuing operation of a safe and reliable school busing program in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, people on the other side of the House might think this is a very unimportant issue. They may not be concerned about it but I would ask them to refrain from interjecting or trying to disrupt what I am saying because the people in Labrador West are very concerned about the safety of their children. It is paramount to them, Mr. Speaker, that this government would and should allocate the necessary funding to operate a safe and reliable busing system for their children. In doing so, they must be able to maintain the type of bus service that they have become accustomed to over the last twenty-five to thirty years, Mr. Speaker. A busing system that they designed around their own parameters because they knew the local conditions. They did not sit in St. John's and decide that busing can be safe in Labrador City when they do not recognize the local conditions, the local climate. They were living in Labrador City and Wabush. They designed it, they paid for it and they delivered it.

Now this government adopts a policy, sitting in St. John's, that does not fit our local climatic conditions and the local geography. They have done a study to outline a busing system that will deliver triple busing which means that kids will be off to school in the mornings when it is dark. It means, because again of our winter conditions, it is unsafe for these young children to be out that early in the morning when it is dark - with snow banks, because of the accumulated snowfall, it will be ten to twelve feet high in Labrador City and Wabush. The snow that fell in Labrador City for the last week will be on the ground up until May.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are living there recognize that. It is unfortunate that the people who are sitting in Cabinet, the Minister of Education and Training who is responsible for it, doesn't consider the safety of the children of the people in Labrador West. It is a sad fact that this government doesn't recognize these children's safety and it will not allocate the necessary funding that is necessary to deliver this very important service to the people of Western Labrador.

The minister yesterday referred to this petition as being nonsense when I brought it up. Now the people who have these children going to school in these unsafe conditions don't think it is nonsense. The fact that it is triple runs in busing means that there will be no lunchtime busing. There is only one school out of six, I believe it is, or five, in Labrador City and Wabush that has the necessary lunchroom facilities. What about the capital expenditure there that is necessary for these kids to eat in a safe environment? Or are they expected to go out and sit on the lawn or in the snow bank and eat their lunches? Is that what the minister expects?

Mr. Speaker, the people in Wabush have been informed that they will not be able to make use of the busing for their children to attend the school that is delivering the French immersion program in Western Labrador. Why? Because this minister says that it is nonsense that they should have that type of busing service. He says that they should have to walk to Labrador City to get in a French immersion program, or provide some other type of busing, some other type of transportation.

The system that was designed by, paid for, built by the people of Western Labrador was in place for twenty-five years. It was a good service. But because of the changes that this minister wants to make and has urged his counterparts in the Cabinet to do it is going to make the condition unsafe. It is going to lower the quality of education in Western Labrador and the people of Western Labrador are not going to put up with it. They are going to be sending me petitions day after day. They are going to be talking to other Cabinet ministers to convince them the evil ways that they are going, and that they have to change their ways and allocate the necessary funding that is necessary to maintain this service in Labrador West. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's day, of course, and the motion to be debated is the one that stands as Motion No. 5 in the name of my friend the Member for Gander.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to rise today for the first time and address this House, and to do so as the representative of Gander is not only an honour and a privilege but a rather humbling experience as well. For I don't believe there can possibly be a more important office in one's life than to be elected to represent your friends and neighbours in this hon. House.

I want to sincerely thank the residents in my district for expressing their confidence in me -

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

MR. VEY: I suggest to the Member for Kilbride that I will be there as long as the people want me. I will get back to you later on, I say to the Member for Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, I'm new to this House, as most hon. members know, and in fact I'm new to government of any kind. I don't have any great lineage of government experience except perhaps for my great-grandmother who I understand was a sister of Sir John Puddester, if that is the correct name. I believe it was. That is an interesting thing. I've been told as well that the first premier of this Province is also related to the Vey's. I haven't been able to determine that, but as soon as I do I will be certain to inform the House of that fact.

As I said, I don't bring any great lineage in government but I'm certainly willing to learn, and to carry out my duties to the best of my ability. I hope and pray that I carry them out in an effective manner for the benefit not only of my district but the Province as a whole.

Gander district has always been and continues to be proud contributors to the Newfoundland economy. Our airport, our military base, our air traffic control centre, our forestry, our Gander River, and more recently mining. Like other areas of the Province we have been employed in these sectors and industries for many years and we hope to continue to do so. We are very proud of our goal to maintain and build on these services, and we want to even make a larger contribution to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, we have been very fortunate indeed; however, we have been recently very concerned about the level of cutbacks and potential cutbacks and downsizing in our town, our airport, our military base and, as the hon. Member for Kilbride just recently mentioned, our air traffic control centre. What we must do is remind the federal government that our airport and its related services are protected under the Terms of Union with this country, and we are not prepared to accept any downsizing, any offloading, or anything else that causes our airport and its services to be severely affected.

The military base has been a strategic military base for over fifty years, and there is no doubt that the Second World War probably could not have been won without the pivotal role played by Gander, and this was again demonstrated during the recent Persian Gulf war when our airport was as busy as any time in recent memory. The military base at Gander should be strengthened, expanded and modernized to recognize and demonstrate the strategic military importance of CFB Gander, and to allow this Province's fair share of military spending.

Mr. Speaker, the international airport and its related activities, including, of course, the air control centre, are the economic backbone of my district, contributing some $70 million annually into the economy, and that is new money; that is not recycled money. We are very proud of that fact, and therefore we are justifiably concerned, and I would say even alarmed, when it appears that anything negative could happen, is about to happen, or has happened, to this vital economic generator.

Mr. Speaker, the downgrading of the airport's importance and its status would have a similar effect on Gander, on the area, and we cannot forget the area. The District of Gander, and particularly the Town of Gander, provides employment for in excess of 1,700 people who live in the outlying regions, and that carries with it an added responsibility as well, and if anything were to negatively and adversely affect those resources it would have the same effect as if you removed the whole provincial government bureaucracy out of the City of St. John's. That is the kind of effect it would have on my district, and we are not prepared to allow that to happen without strong resistance from our residents.

Mr. Speaker, Gander district recognizes that we live in an age of technological change, of government restraints and changing demographics, and that we cannot rest on our past accomplishments and expect everything will work out fine to our satisfaction. The residents of my district have always strived to be in the forefront of change, and we realize all too well that we must take advantage of our opportunities, diversify our economy, develop our resources, and plan for our future, and we have been doing that. We also fully endorse this government's Strategic Economic Plan, and we fully endorse as well the economic zones.

Mr. Speaker, Gander district, like most areas of the Province, have to assess where they are in this modern age. We have to assess our resources more carefully. We have to look at our strengths and weaknesses, and we have to plan for our future, and we must do this, for the most part, by ourselves. Gone is the day when we can expect governments of any stripe to pull us up by the bootstraps and keep us going.

Mr. Speaker, we are determined that while there are certainly other parts of this great nation, and even in this great Province, that perhaps have more opportunities for economic development than we do, we are certainly not without our own opportunities, and we are seizing the moment. We are managing the Gander River for the first time in a professional way. We are developing trade links with places like Mexico and Cuba, and even recently we are making inroads into the European market. We are looking at our airport as a place for freight forwarding. We are looking at national and international tourism, so we haven't been sitting on our laurels and doing nothing, Mr. Speaker. However, the District of Gander has been hit pretty hard economically in the past ten or twelve years, starting perhaps in 1983 with the relocation of EPA, 400 jobs. Air Canada - while perhaps not significant in the number of jobs that were lost, certainly significant in the fact that the other airports within this Province have gained international traffic on a regularly scheduled international carrier. The privatization of Terra Nova Tel has resulted in tremendous income loss and job loss to my community. These are just to name a few. And now we are faced with the downgrading - not the closure, but the downgrading and relocation of our military base. Of course, we have also been hit, and the business community has been hit, by the resent closure of the groundfishery, and that has had a dramatic impact on the business community in Gander which services most of the Northeast Coast.

Of course, we have opportunities, as I said, to develop our river which has been managed for the first time in a professional way and that has the potential to employ hundreds of people. We have often times spent foolishly in the past and often for just political reasons. We have placed our future and our children's future in grave doubt. We have borrowed our way to a false prosperity in many ways and have put ourselves into a position where our cherished social programs are in danger. The services we offer our seniors, our disabled, and others less fortunate than ourselves are perhaps in real jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow these programs and services to our people to be further downgraded. I believe these programs are the measure of a civilized and caring society and we must protect them. However, in order to protect those programs we have to rethink the way in which we govern this Province and we must do so within the parameters of our financial ability, and I have great confidence that we can be successful. Indeed we must, for our residents will accept nothing less.

We also have to realize that we are on the verge of a new prosperity in this Province which will propel us well into the next century and one day in the not-too-distant future this Province will be in a position to become a net contributor to this great nation of ours. While we may now live in difficult times financially, we also have responsibility to our people to not continually talk of doom and gloom, of cutbacks and financial reorganization, as important and necessary as they are, and I don't think there is anybody in this Province who doesn't realize how important it is to reassess our financial situation, and to cut back, avoid, and eliminate waste.

We must offer our people hope and encouragement of better times in the future, particularly in rural Newfoundland. We must tell them there are opportunities for small business. There are exciting new developments in offshore and onshore oil. There are new mineral developments. There will be a revitalized fishery, and there are tremendous opportunities in tourism, national and international, aquaculture development. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the many, many opportunities in this Province. We must not be afraid to instill in our people a sense of excitement and anticipation of the new prosperity that I am convinced is just around the corner. That is a provincial responsibility.

Now, along with our provincial responsibilities there is also a federal responsibility. While Confederation with Canada was no doubt the single most important and positive development in this Province's history, I cannot help but feel that in a lot of ways we were shortchanged. Having been born a Canadian and grown up with changes in this Province, and while the social programs that Confederation brought to us were badly needed by our people - I can remember my own dearly departed grandmother who had a picture of Joey Smallwood over her mantel, and if you said anything against Mr. Smallwood, then you were in deep, deep trouble.

That was the benefit that Confederation brought to people. We were living on five or six cents a day and then all of a sudden, the next day, the revenue and wealth were coming to the mothers and fathers of this Province that they never ever had seen before, never possibly dreamed could happen.

I talked to a lady in Gander during the campaign - I just happened to run into her on the street - and we talked about Confederation. She worked with the postal service in Newfoundland prior to Confederation, and she told me she made $45.00 a month and the month after Confederation she made $350.00 a month; that's the kind of benefit, Mr. Speaker, that Confederation brought to us, but I fear that what was really needed in this Province was assistance with the development of our resources and the knowledge and the training to enable us to become a contributing partner to Confederation and not dependent on these programs.

The programs that reflected the Newfoundland reality were often ineffective and contributed, in my opinion, to a large-scale dependency on Ottawa that, coupled with the mismanagement of our fishery and the unwillingness of Ottawa to exercise its powers and allow a corridor through the Province of Quebec, have contributed to the position that we find ourselves in today. And now, Mr. Speaker, Ottawa has its own problems and they now want to further damage our already fragile economy by downsizing the already meagre role played by the Canadian military in this Province.

This is not just about cost savings, Mr. Speaker, or modernization or creating a more efficient military. This is about the protection and the convenience of the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Why else, would they try to build new facilities in Leitrim instead of Gander, when we have been told that the savings would be pretty well equal in either place? If they were serious about saving dollars by remoting Gander and centralizing in Ottawa, then I would encourage the military to continue that model and move all military activities to Newfoundland if they could operate more efficiently in this Province than they could elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days, I had occasion to read The Evening Telegram and in the corner - I forget what page it is now -I saw a news item there that says: `Base Building Boom', and it certainly caught my eye, and it said: Trenton, Ontario. And I will ask your leave to just comment on a few words here. It says: The building boom has landed at Canada's busiest air force base. The Canadian Airborne Centre will be moving the Canadian Forces Base from Edmonton to Trenton, next year. The Skyhawks, Canada's famous parachute display team -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. VEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- will be moved from CFB, Edmonton to Trenton. The mass relocation will mean $50 million in construction projects. A training centre, a barracks, a mock skydiving tower are among the facilities to be built. This is going to cost $50 million in construction and $13.3 million, the cost of relocating. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, where are the cutbacks in the richest province in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to run over my time and I will now like to defer to other hon. members of this House, allowing them an opportunity to debate this issue, which is near and dear to me and, I am sure, near and dear to other members.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I first want to, publicly in this Chamber, congratulate the Member for Gander on being elected in the recent by-election and I apologize also for interrupting him initially when he was making his maiden speech. I thought he had spoken earlier, after all, we have been in the House some five or six weeks, but I apologize, I didn't meant to interrupt you in your maiden speech and I fully understand, when you rise in the House, initially as a new member, with some trepidation and to get a chance to thank your district, but, Mr. Speaker, that's the only apology I will make in my comments dealing with this private member's resolution.

Now, the Member for Gander has said: `WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador are the most Easterly points in North America which historically had and continues to have major importance as a strategic military location;' and he goes on to say, `and WHEREAS only two per cent of Canada's National Defence Budget is spent in Newfoundland and Labrador; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on the Government of Canada to increase its level of National Defence spending in Newfoundland and Labrador; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House recognizes Gander as a strategic military location of world renown and urges the Government of Canada to take appropriate action to strengthen, modernize and expand Gander and other military locations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.'

Well, it is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Gander didn't put these thoughts together and publicly announce them during the Gander by-election, because the pitch that he made during the Gander by-election, was not one to discuss this issue but was one to keep this issue from coming to the forefront publicly until the by-election was over.

The resolution that he probably put to Mr. Tobin and Mr. Baker and the Premier at the time was, Whereas three and-a-half weeks ago it said that people in Gander were polled and it was indicated that 82 per cent of people in Gander would vote for him and the Liberal Party; and whereas at this point in time, some two weeks later, we were running neck and neck plead, therefore be it resolved Mr. Tobin and Mr. Wells, please do not bring down the cuts on Gander, please do not announce how the military cutbacks will impact upon Gander, because it may impact on my ability to get elected in the by-election. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker, and it surfaced initially during the by-election, but was held off until some two weeks later; now, that is what happened. I was there, I spent three weeks there during the by-election with a terrific candidate who knocked on every door in Gander - unlike the Liberal Party candidate of the day - who knocked on every door, who left no stone unturned and who lost by .07 per cent of the vote. I say to the Member for Gander, enjoy your time right here because it will be short. The candidate for our party will be back in the next election, and I can tell you that after the next election is over the Member for Gander will be sitting with the Tories and not with the Liberals, I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Gander has a strategic and important part to play in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is one location for which we should be speaking out more. Like today, in questions that I asked of the Government House Leader about the impacts of privatization of air traffic control services. The impact directly on jobs is one thing in Gander. What will happen? Will all those jobs move to Moncton? What this government should be doing right now is getting a guarantee and a commitment from the federal transportation minister that those jobs at the air traffic control station in Moncton, will be coming to Gander - that's what should be happening here. It is not the jobs in Gander that should be going to Moncton but the air traffic control centre in Moncton that should close down and move to Gander, for very legitimate reasons - strategically located. The most easterly point, as the member has brought out.

This area, whether hon. members know it or not - there is more air traffic over Gander to be handled than there is over New York or over Chicago, two of the busiest airports in the world. But the amount of international traffic coming through, it is a point that bottlenecks and air traffic control in Gander sends planes everywhere from that point. That is what should be happening, but I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker, that this government will lobby the federal transportation minister to do that. I urge the Member for Gander to ensure that that happens. I tell him now that if he needs any support, if there is anything that I can do to help him in his efforts to ensure that that happens, then I commit that today. The federal transportation minister, Mr. Doug Young, is not a stranger to this Province, I can tell you that. I say to the hon. the Member for Gander, before his arrival in this House last year and continuing, the federal transportation minister's initiatives, in terms of transportation in this Province, have been lacklustre, to say the least. They have been initiatives taken by him and his department that have negatively affected this Province in a most serious, serious way.

Let's look at the Newfoundland Dockyard, for example. We know what happened there. We know what is happening there, and I can tell you now, I know what will happen there. But the federal Department of Transport needs to be taken on, and taken on first and foremost by this Premier. We cannot sit by, Mr. Speaker, day after day or month after month and watch the political rape that is occurring in this Province through the Federal Government. Because that's what is happening. To the Member for Gander let me say this: That whatever it takes to ensure that the military base remains intact, whatever it takes to ensure that a little bit more of the Federal Government's national defence budget goes into Gander - because if the jobs that are predicted to be lost there now publicly, and he knows, if they are lost, then there won't be a base, because it will lose its base status. It will lose its definition. It won't even meet the criteria to become a base. He knows this. He knows it better than anybody, I suspect.

In terms of air traffic control, can you imagine the impact of 250 jobs taken out of Gander? Now, these jobs are in the range of somewhere between $60,000 and $110,000 a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And more, yes. The impact, indirectly, in terms of the local economy, what that would have. It would be significant, unbelievable. We are talking about high-paying disposable incomes that are spent as such. I have a lot of friends who are air traffic controllers; I went to university with many of them. And they are very, very scared.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, twenty million, exactly. As of April 1, all air traffic control services, or all air traffic control people, will not work with the Federal Government. It will be a privatized service in this country. The reason for it? Two hundred million dollars, it cost the Federal Government last year for air traffic control services. That is a responsibility they should maintain. That is a very important service to all Canadians including those people in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in supporting the resolution put forward by the Member for Gander today, and support it openly and publicly. But let's do more than put it on paper. Let's see if the proof will be in the pudding. I urge the Member for Gander to get to his Cabinet colleagues and get them on their feet. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who deals every day, or should be dealing every day, with the federal minister, Doug Young - get him moving; and get the Premier moving, to ensure that this private member's resolution which I support that he has put forward adds up to more than just a debate in this House today. Then, at the end of the day we will see some concrete results that will positively impact upon this Province and the people of Gander.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the hon. member's resolution. It is very timely, of course, with the situation with government finance being very difficult these days. Newfoundland has been, over the years, a strategic point in the overall development of military policy for the NATO countries, North America in general, I guess. And we have seen the growth of Gander to its high point at some time in the recent past, with respect to the infrastructure that it has maintained on behalf of the people of North America in the area of air traffic control, the area of defence, and the area of providing the services necessary to maintain the infrastructure of air travel.

From a military standpoint, it has been a strategic location both as a northern listening post, the `turkey farm' as anyone from Gander and anyone who flies in there frequently knows of, the listening post that is there looking like an turkey farm. That particular area as it is referred to is a covert operation but it is a necessary part of the Canadian Security Intelligence system. It provides good benefit to the Province through these people living and working in Gander.

In the overall, I would suppose, you could say that these are things we should hope to maintain at the maximum level possible. We should also hope that much less transfer would occur to other locations throughout the country, that Gander plays second fiddle to no one. Granted, the low amount of spending that occurs in this Province insofar as the amount of defence spending on a per capita basis is concerned - the amount of defence spending overall in the Province is very low. It is only in the last number of years, within the last five years, I suppose, that defence spending in Atlantic Canada has even risen - with respect to the contract and procurement area - risen to its high point because of the contracts that were let to St. John's shipyard in building a lot of the navy vessels, and this has askewed the defence contracting to Atlantic Canada's benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of the Province.

There are numerous companies in the Province that have undertaken efforts to try to improve their possibility of bidding on government work, and in order to provide the goods, materials and services necessary for the benefit of the military. We have a number of small high tech companies that are growing in this area, some providing sub-contractual work for General Motors on defence contracts, and others that are doing such in relation to a number of defence contracts, and this is all good for the Province. But again, we don't receive the full share of our total percentage that would be due us under the Federal Government legislation on procurement for the Province. So there is a point there that could certainly see some future business development opportunities for Gander should the strength and the suasion of the Government of Canada be in favour of the efforts to help diversify as the base in Gander changes its focus with the cold wars now being over and the changes to intelligence and other things that will take place there.

There is no doubt there will be changes. There is no doubt that as elected politicians on behalf of the people of the Province, we should do everything in our power to help mitigate these changes, to help maintain the maximum level of employment possible, to maintain the maximum level of benefit for the Province possible, and to try to minimize the level of displacement of individuals and the effect on the community possible.

So, looking at that, one would have to say that the hon. member's motion, and Gander in itself, was chosen for a reason, and that reason hasn't really changed. The reason for Gander's existence as an airport of international significance has not changed whatsoever. From a military standpoint there are some things that have been happening with respect to strategic military situations that would indicate that maybe a large air force base type situation there may not be in the cards in the near future, but who is to know what the future beyond the immediate term will hold? Who is to know if world peace, as we have it now, is something that will be maintained? It is not something that we wish to change, but certainly it is the kind of thing that we would have to look at, that the infrastructure there should be maintained, that a certain level of service should be maintained as well.

Now, looking at the situation, the Opposition will always try to paint the government's initiatives with respect to Gander, and also anything to do with elections, the hon. member's election here to the House, a victory beyond what anyone would say is a stellar victory in a very close-fought race, and the hon. member stood true and came to this House of Assembly without any apologies, without fear of the Opposition suggesting that he shan't be here long, because nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. member is a very steadfast individual who will stand and represent the constituents of Gander to the best of his ability, and I would say, doing his job in a very true and steadfast manner, that he will be re-elected to this Chamber come the next provincial election, without any doubt. It will wear thin to suggest that an opponent previous shall gain in any way in the interim period while the hon. member is sitting in this House and doing business on behalf of the people of the Gander area. So, we look forward to his return to the Chamber in the future and also we look forward to his success.

I must say that when the announcement was made back some time ago by the hon. MP, Mr. Baker, who spoke of the potential for cutbacks at the Gander base, I was very pleased with the reaction that was brought forward, not only by the hon. member here in this Chamber, but by the mayor and others in the area who know and realize fully that they will have to make changes, adapt, and do what they can to maintain the best possible benefit from the commercialization of certain military activities in the area. Now, that is without any consideration for the effect it will have on the community, of course. They will have to deal with that impact as they expect to, because there will be some changes, there will be some downsizing, but we here in this Chamber, I think, have to support the hon. member's motion because of its timeliness; and we have to see to it that we are all working in concert with one another to do whatever we can from a commercialization standpoint of the existing military services and this sort of thing that are being provided to them, see if they can be improved somewhat, if we can undertake efforts that will provide the maximum benefit to Gander, and other airports in the Province that have any dealings with the military.

This is not just a Gander motion, of course, it is a motion that will have an effect on the whole Province with respect to national defence spending and all of these things. It is a kind of motion where we ask the Federal Government to do something. It is not the kind where we can solicit the expenditure of our own funds clear of any benefit that would be provided to the council and the airport development group at Gander, and how they go about their work, but certainly, the argument put forward is a very capable one. The hon. member mentioned it would be not unlike removing the full government bureaucracy from St. John's to see the downsizing of the airport's support system at Gander, that kind of effect would be had on that particular area.

Gander is not only just an airport for that situation. You would have to look at the Gander airport as to the infrastructure that has grown up there and how that affects the overall area that uses Gander as a service centre. The sustenance of the infrastructure in the Gander area for benefit of the outlying areas is also a key part in the critical mass of population in that area, is what will maintain that kind of infrastructure for the benefit of those who come into the Gander area and shop, those who are provided with medical services, provincial government and court services and what have you.

Those are all key parts and reasons why we, as hon. members, should do whatever we can. There is very little military activity in the area I represent but I would say to the hon. member that all of us in this House would do whatever is possible. As the hon. member opposite has mentioned, we should always, I suppose, take what people say at face value, and certainly, the offer of the hon. Mr. Byrne from Kilbride to offer all of his assistance in this, of course, is balanced against the dagger he would have out to have this hon. member removed from the Chamber come time of the next election. That is something we have to weigh when we are being offered the opportunity to work together on something.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member's motion should be looked at favourably by all hon. members here. I also commit to work closely with the hon. the Member for Gander and the people of Gander in whatever capacity I may on behalf of the people of the Province, in seeing to it that this motion has some impact with the Government of Canada and with the people of the Province being represented here in this Chamber collectively, to take that forward as something of substance for the benefit of all of us here in this Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will allow hon. members opposite to have further comments. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

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

I am pleased today to rise and make a few comments on this particular debate, especially on the motion put forward by the Member for Gander. I want to say at the outset, that first of all I am glad to see the Member for Gander take his time to get up here today in the House and represent his district by putting forward such a motion. I am glad that he also had a chance to make his maiden speech. I thought he would have had a chance before now - he has been here for a few weeks. I am not sure how long exactly - three weeks now, almost four weeks in the House of Assembly.

It is a very timely issue, as the Member for LaPoile has already mentioned and it is something that is very important, not just to the people in Gander, it is important to everybody in this Province, what is happening, and the potential implications for Gander with the downsizing of the military in Gander.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I, too, also know Gander very well. It is what I consider to be my neighbouring community. I have spent a lot of time in Gander. I know a lot of people in Gander. I have a lot of good, close friends in Gander, and we all know, as government and Opposition, how important is the role that Gander has played in the economy of this Province. It is probably one of the most prosperous per capita communities in this Province and it has been for many years. It all lies within the realms of the military presence in Gander and, of course, the airport itself. So, Mr. Speaker, it is timely that this motion is brought forward to the House and I would say to the House and to the Member for LaPoile who talks about daggers and so on, Mr. Speaker, I pledge my full support, as all of my colleagues, I am sure, on this side of the House and government members would also pledge their support for this resolution. We have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. We know how important that is to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion and make a few points from the motion specifically. First of all: `Whereas Newfoundland and Labrador are most Easterly points in North America which historically had and continues to have major importance as a strategic military location;' Mr. Speaker, this first section of the motion, for example, was repeated by the Premier in this House and during the by-election. It was also put forward by the Premier that it was a strong case to expand, to improve and to keep - at least maintain the presence in Gander, as is now. That was articulated by the Premier, by the Member for Gander and by other politicians, such as the MP for Gander, Mr. George Baker - it was also articulated by him. So, Mr. Speaker, all of us, including those people, support the presence of the military in Gander. We also believe that it should probably be expanded with just this first section of the motion which reads its location and how it is strategically located in the Atlantic so that we should expand it and should maintain in Gander. So nobody has a problem with that part.

The second part: `Whereas only 2 per cent of Canada's National Defence Budget is spent in Newfoundland and Labrador;' Mr. Speaker, only 2 per cent. Again, I agree with the Premier when he articulated those points and the MP for Gander when he also said it and all of us who have said it - less than 2 per cent, Mr. Speaker, of the defence budget. Although everybody agrees on the strategic location and that we should have a presence in Gander and as a matter of fact, expand on that presence in Gander.

The Member for Gander commented earlier that it was very important in World War II, the location of Gander. We all know that through history, we covered that. During World War II, as the Member for Gander said earlier, it was a very important location inasfar as strategy goes, and the effects and the implications that it had for that particular war. But more recently, of course, in the Gulf War, during which we saw very busy times for Gander, it was used again. So, Mr. Speaker, the point is, it was used in the past as a strategic location, and it was used just lately in modern times as a strategic location. Therefore, although the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in the Province doesn't understand, I will try to simplify it again for him, that the Member for Gander, the Premier, all the members of the House of Assembly, should support Gander as a strategic location. It makes sense to have Gander as a strategic location, not just for this Province or for this country, but for the world, as a military strategic location. So we all support that.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has a hard time understanding that. But I can understand that, though. I really feel sorry for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that he doesn't understand it. Maybe, later on, his colleague, the new Member for Gander, who has only been here for a short while, can explain to the veteran who has been here so long, who wakes up every now and then and listens to a few things, maybe the Member for Gander, the rookie, can go and explain it to him, and maybe even write down a few notes for him. Because he does have a hard time understanding, I can see that. I feel sorry for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who can't understand it.

It is very understandable that he is out of touch with this as far as transportation goes, like he is out of touch with the rest of the transportation issues in the Province. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can go back to sleep. We will wake him again at the end of the comments. The Member for Gander, the rookie MHA, will go and explain it to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Then we turn to the third whereas: "Whereas every other province of Canada, except two, receives a higher percentage of the Department of National Defence budget." It is a good point and I am glad that the member put it in his `whereas'. Because, as to the point raised earlier on the strategic location, there is not a better place than the Island of Newfoundland for that location. It is better than Prince Edward Island, better than Nova Scotia, I would say to the Member for Gander, better than anywhere in Atlantic Canada. That is why it is so easy, that we can support it so strongly.

So: "Therefore be it resolved that this House of Assembly calls on the Government of Canada to increase its level of National Defence spending in Newfoundland and Labrador." Here is where we started to run into some problems, I think, and that is what I would like to make a few comments on today.

I congratulate the Member for Gander, for bringing forward such a motion at such timing. I am glad that it has been brought forward. But here is the question, and it is just not tied to this particular issue. It is to do with federal cousins, federal counterparts, whichever way you want to term it. It is fine for us to get up today and articulate our positions here in this House on a private member's resolution, but I challenge the Member for Gander now to take it further than this debate, and further than the Premier of this Province has taken it so far. This is where I've seen it.

Once during the Gander by-election, the Premier made a three-hour appearance for a three-week campaign, made some announcement that: `We are not sure of any cuts yet, we haven't heard of anything yet, we don't know anything.' The same old story as with so many issues in this Province. `Listen, our federal cousins will take care of that. We trust them. We have to be responsible. We can't get up and rant and rave,' the Premier says. `We can't do that. We can't get our fingers dirty.' The Premier of this Province can't roll up his sleeves, he has cufflinks in. He can't roll up his sleeves; that would be too irresponsible. That wouldn't be like the Premier to speak so irresponsibly, so he can't roll up his sleeves.

I'm saying to the Member for Gander here today in all sincerity: You ask the Premier and the ministers of this government to do more than lip service and do more than a resolution in this House, and roll up his sleeves and get his hands a little bit dirty, and maybe raise his voice every now and then - it won't hurt him - to his federal counterparts, to make sure that there is some meat behind this. That is what I challenge the Member for Gander, to make sure there is some meat behind this - not an opportunity for the Member for Gander to get up and make his maiden speech with a resolution that affects his district, which is fine and dandy. But what comes behind it is what really counts. That is what the people in Gander are going to be waiting to see in the next general election, whether there was any meat behind what the Member for Gander really brought forward.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to digress for one second now, and we will talk about polls. Everybody is worried about talking about polls. I'm not worried about talking about polls. The poll that came out yesterday was just like the one a few weeks before, just like eating an ice cream, it happens for today and then that is it. We all know in this House what a poll means. It is the day and enjoy it and have a smile because it is all over tomorrow. Because I was out there in Gander district for three weeks also, and the Member for Gander knows it. You know the poll that was handed to me three weeks before that Gander by-election, the safe Liberal seat in this Province, the Winst Baker seat that nobody was ever going to defeat, nobody thought we had a chance, 82 per cent Liberal of decided vote, 12 per cent Tory, and they sent us out with a candidate of whom everybody asked: Who is that? He has won by acclamation. What is he going to do? No campaign headquarters, no candidate, no nothing, 82 per cent Liberal, 12 per cent Tory. Forget it boys, don't even bother going out there. We were told that, forget it, don't bother to go out there. Eighteen days later, on the real poll, the only one that I like to talk about, the real poll on Election Day, what was it? A difference from 82 to 12, from 47 to 46.1, a difference of less than a percentage point - less than a percentage point.

I say to all hon. members, if they are comfortable with this so-called poll from yesterday about 30/40, or whatever the heck it was, it was not very much - I did notice one thing, that there are a lot of undecided voters in this Province who are not clinging to the seven years of this government, who are not hanging their hats on the seven years of this government. I would challenge the Premier today, if he was here. If the Premier were here today I would say: Premier, yes, smile on your polls. You just got your poll in, now, call an election. If you were comfortable with Gander election, and scraped by with a .7 percentage point - .7 of a point, not even a full percentage point. If that was comfortable, call an election and we will see where that undecided vote goes, if that was a comfortable seat. The Member for Gander well knows, when the famous MP, George Baker, who, by the way, is a lot more popular than this Provincial Government, and I can see why he has -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SHELLEY: Because he is the only one who has opposition, outside the opposition on this side, in this Province to stand up and talk about Newfoundland issues when it is against his government policy. Mr. Speaker, that is what I challenge some members on this opposite side to do, with the reception he got in Grand Falls last night, and I can tell you, if the Member for Gander gets the MP for Gander behind him the same way that he hopes to get his own government behind him, if he gets his MP behind him from Gander the same way that he hopes to get the Premier and his ministers behind him, we may do something with this resolution. But if it is just lip service in this House, where it is going to stop here and we say, `Good job, you have presented your resolution', that is where it dies. That is what we are going to see, and that is my challenge to the Member for Gander today.

I will say this to the Member for Gander today also. I hope there is enough stirred up by this government and this Premier on this particular issue with Gander, because it is important, and I would like to see you win it. I would like to see enough lobbying and pressure, or whatever you want to call it, more than a lip service of a Premier from three weeks ago standing up for two minutes during a by-election and saying that he was going to do all he could for the people of Gander - all he could. Well, my question is: What is `all he could'? We are soon going to find out, because what the Member for Gander has done here is put the carrot out. Now, the Premier of this Province and his government, to which he belongs now, we are going to find out if he is really supporting this, or if this is just token support. Mr. Speaker, this is not the only issue in this Province where we need the support of the Premier and the ministers and this government.

The UI reforms that will hit this Province as hard as any issue in the history of this Province are about to come down the tube within days. Now, will somebody in this Province, or somebody on the other side of this House, get up and tell me about the fight that was put up by this government to protect Newfoundlanders who need UI so desperately, from the impact of those UI reforms. Ottawa, including our own MPs, Mr. Tobin included, who is my member, have said very, very little about it. And it will come home to roost. The changes to the UI that are about to come down the tube will have more impact on this Province than on any other Province of Canada. Can somebody, federally, on the other side of the House, anybody in the Province, tell me where the fight was by this Premier and this government?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that reminds me, now that we have another squeak from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - it is funny how it reminds me. He doesn't have to say a word - all he has to do is burp and he reminds me. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who used to be the big hero on the soap boxes wherever you went, before I ran, before I really got interested in politics, I thought he was the biggest hero we have ever seen since Mammy's sliced bread. He was on every soap box, he was everywhere, I have clippings I saw - my colleague from Placentia showed me today, clippings of the minister when he was a Social Service Critic - what was he the chairman of, the fishery - what was that called? Can the minister tell me what he was chairman of? Some fisheries group, I can't remember. Can the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tell me what he was the chairman of, what committee was that? United Fisherpersons. The minister was the Chairman of the United Fisherpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, he was going to take on John Crosbie and everybody else.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder where was his soap box in the last few days when the fees for fishermen started to go up? What did he do with his soap box? Did he take the soap box apart, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, and sit back in his chair now? Of all the members over there, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Member for Gander but he has left his seat and I guess he is listening to the system outside, but I do want to begin by congratulating the Member for Gander on his maiden speech into the resolution which will bring prosperity and will continue to bring prosperity to the Town of Gander.

I can't imagine that anybody could be argumentative against the resolution such as the member has introduced in the House of Assembly today, but I have to make some comments about the hon. member opposite who was up on his feet speaking. In fact, the first five minutes of his speech, I was starting to be concerned, I was starting to get down under my seat because I was feeling that some shells were going to come passing over my head when he started talking about wars; war I, war II, war III. Now I don't know if he really had himself convinced that we were in a world war or he was just practising with the live shells he had in his pocket. But whatever it was, I was starting to get a bit nervous,

So then he gets the speech going from the wars, then he starts getting into a fighting mood and I said: My gracious, what's coming down here this afternoon? What did this man have for dinner? From a war to a fistfight or to whatever, but, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Shellfish.

MR. EFFORD: Shellfish, he is all mixed up.

I heard a statement made to a fellow one day when he was having a big argument and someone else said that he was still going around with live shells in his pockets and I believe the hon. member fits that description.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that why you were shell-shocked?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I just was actually.

Mr. Speaker, I have to make a point on how to approach the federal government on an issue such as this issue which is so important to the future development of Gander.

The resolution as put forward by the member has been agreed upon by both sides of the House. It is a resolution that nobody can argue against but the hon. member opposite makes some points on it, how would you take this to our federal cousins in Ottawa?

Well, I will tell you, I have seen some pretty wild debates in this House of Assembly. The former Premier, Brian Peckford, was real classy as to how he presented himself in a speech and how he used to jump and have the hands going and ranting and raving; another friend of mine, Richard Cashin, the leader of the union was a similar individual, when he would get up and he would rant and rave and the fist going all over the head and how we are going to take on our cousins in Ottawa. I have seen some incidents when all of this would happen, at times you would have to go and take them down off the desks, Peckford - and he will hop on to the middle of the desk and he would go from one end of the stage to the other with the fist going and the people cheering and ranting and raving and all this.

I saw it one time in effect with the freezer trawlers. I know one time on the factory freezer trawlers: we are not, under any circumstance going to allow factor freezer trawlers on the Grand Banks, and the sweat coming off, and the tie off to one side and his shirt collar open, Brian Peckford, the former Premier of this Province, and we are not going to agree with our federal cousins in Ottawa, we are all of the same stripe, well we are not going to allow it. We are going to take them on and we are going to rip it all apart.

Well, I saw that work, saw that type of action take place but I can tell the hon. member one thing, the factory freezer trawlers made it to the Grand Banks, with all the ranting and raving, they went out there and that is the reason why we have 25,000 to 30,000 people unemployed today. Because all that ranting and raving - for ten years that former premier with the ranting and raving. The point I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is does the ranting and raving really work?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, you have that right. I'm talking about ranting and raving to try to solve a problem. Does it really work? That is the point I'm making. I'm not arguing what is out there. But this is what the member is saying, that the Member for Gander should rant and rave, and all the people on this side.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we used a different tactic, if you used some common sense, some sensible debate, some level of intelligence, that you sit down and you would rationally discuss an issue that matters to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I wonder if at the end of the day would at least as much be accomplished or possibly more. So does the ranting and raving really work?

No, it doesn't really work. How an individual gets his point across is up to the individual who is presenting that point. If the former premier felt that he needed to get his point across in that manner that is his right. That was his right. I remember the time Richard Cashin went to Ottawa. That was really when I (inaudible) about the ranting and raving. When he left St. John's, get out of my way, there were fists going everywhere. When he got up in front of Brian Mulroney, before he met Brian Mulroney: Brick by brick we'll tear this building apart. We'll take it down brick by brick, take the mortar out. We will have what we want for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Boy, did he go in. Walked in through the door, this little man, about four feet five inches tall, and he was going in, fists coming apart.

Boy, you should have seen him when he came out. What a meeting we had. The smile and the calmness of when he came out, and Brian patting him on the head: Now Richie, you go back to Newfoundland. What did he get? There is ranting and raving. There is what ranting and raving really takes care of.

We know all about the ranting and raving, we know all about what the hon. members get in their ranting and raving. The Member for Gander is quite capable of presenting his case to the people in Ottawa. To his so-called federal cousins in Ottawa he is quite capable in his own style, as is the Premier of this Province, as is every person on this side.

Let's get to the real issue about Gander. I had the opportunity just over the past couple of months to travel with the TOPS group, the people involved in promotion of the Gander airport, trying to attract some more business, passenger service, and the international flights stopping in Gander. I tell you, this is where you really get a good education of how important the aviation system, how important the federal service to the armed forces would be stepped up in Gander, how important it is to the future economic conditions of Gander. Nobody can argue that anything that anybody - whether you are a minister of government, a premier of the Province, or a member on this side of the House or a member on that side - anything that anybody could do to impress on the federal government in Ottawa how important - not only the strategic location of Gander, but the economic development, and what it means to the economic survival of the future of Gander, and look at other parts of Canada. Because I think that is a real issue here.

If you've got a presence of armed forces in other parts of Canada and you look at what the numbers are here in Newfoundland, look at the prosperity of the provinces where the armed forces are located in other parts of Canada compared to the economic situation of Newfoundland. For all the reasons that you could put together, or all the thoughts you could put together, I don't think anybody in Canada can argue that we deserve our fair share for all the reasons. We were strategically located to the advantage of Canada and the United States and North America during the great world wars, the First World War and the Second World War. They needed us then, why drop us now?

That is what I'm talking about. You needed us then in Stephenville, Pleasantville, St. John's, Goose Bay, and especially in Gander, and Argentia. We were there. The people of this great Province were there. Not only did they go overseas and give their lives but the Province - the location was strategically important for the protection of North America.

Now most of the place is starting to disappear. We are saying, as a Province, we do not want it to disappear. Who knows, God forbid, that we would ever need it again but nevertheless the training and the presence of forces, the Armed Forces will remain in Canada. The fact that it remains in Canada and the multimillion dollars is spent in Canada - the fact remains that during the First and Second World War that we were strategically located and it is important that it should continue. It should continue and it should be stepped up. If you can spend money in Quebec, you can spend money in Ontario, you can spend money in British Columbia and other parts of Canada, you should be able to spend an equal amount or even a percentage higher in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

We are willing to give our commitment, we are willing to pay our fair share in time of need and in the good times we should be equally well deserving of getting our fair share of the pie and to ask to have in Gander, in St. John's and in Goose Bay, to have the presence not only stay but to be stepped up. I don't think it is an unfair request or unfair demand on the federal government. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier, all members on this side and especially the Member for Gander will communicate to the federal government the position that he so adamantly put forth in this resolution today that will mean future financial success to the future of Gander and if Gander succeeds financially and plays a role in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador dealing with the future financial commitments of this great Province of ours.

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West took his sleeping pill again this morning after he got out of bed not knowing that he is supposed to take it before he goes to bed in the evening, took it out again this morning. So rather then allow him to fall asleep I am going to sit down and let him get up so he can stay awake for at least another ten or fifteen minutes.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to support the resolution as put forward by the new Member for Gander.

Before I continue, I would like to echo support for what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation just had to say. When they needed us they pumped money in. Now should they be allowed to drop us? No, they should not, `they' being the federal government.

The resolution as put forward by the Member for Gander states about calls on the Government of Canada to increase its level of national defence spending in Newfoundland and Labrador. Percentages were used here earlier today, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going into those because there is a danger of just percentages. We all know that Newfoundland has somewhere around 2 per cent of the population of Canada. The resolution said that they spend about 2 per cent but actual spending is closer to 1 per cent from the little bit of research I have done, which makes matters worst.

A few years ago there were 68,000 people in Eastern Canada employed because of military spending. Thirty-eight hundred of those were employed in Newfoundland. That is in every mode of spending from those enlisted in the military to civilian workers. Our volunteer rate in Newfoundland, in the Canadian Forces was always exceptionally high. Two or three years ago it was up around 12 per cent of the volunteer services of the Armed Forces of this country. The shame of it is that Newfoundlanders filled most of the combat arms units. Other provinces, their enlistments went into higher technical services of the Canadian Armed Forces. That has to change as well. We have to train and better train our people to be able to fill these high ranking services in the military because when they get out of the military they can take jobs on, as they say `city street' in the military. They can transfer their technologies to civilian life. What we have in Canada is other provinces enjoying military spending and Newfoundland not getting its fair benefit. There are hundreds and millions of dollars every year that go into operations and maintenance. Is any of it coming here? If there is, show me, because I am not aware of it. We have to get in on committed funds. We have to know the way DND spends its money.

Some time ago the Premier and Brian Tobin announced an economic renewal program for the Province. As a matter of fact, it was announced on June 16 of this year. They talked about $100 million for a five-year period for aquaculture, tourism and information technologies. In that press release, they touched briefly on a special task force on the Newfoundland economy that was established by the Privy Council. That group, made up of the Prime Minister, the Premier, federal ministers, and provincial ministers do not have to look very far beyond the disproportions and ratios of what this Province gets in military spending. If they got that up a percentage, or two or three, we would see the economy improve in this Province.

Discretionary spending - we have not been accessible to it. Some companies might be able to get in on some of these discretionary payments but that committee which I just mentioned a minute ago, the provincial wing of it, if they found out for sure what way the defence department spends its money, the whole gamut from defence right on through, Newfoundland companies or those people willing to form companies could be informed on the ways they could get in on some of these operational and maintenance multimillion dollar projects. Then, we would see these companies being accessible to committed funding over a five-year period, or over a ten-year period, whatever way some of these units work, where a company or companies could make further plans and further improvements.

In the rest of this country, there are hundreds and hundreds of million dollars spent a year by the Department of National Defence, and what we are getting shipped from the Government of Canada to this Province is unemployment. If we are not getting our fair share, if they are not willing to up the percentages of what we are getting, what they are shipping us, Mr. Speaker, is just unemployment. Now, we have enough unemployment.

Where I come from in the Placentia area, which for decades has contributed greatly to the Newfoundland economy, you have unemployment running anywhere from 70 per cent to 73 per cent. We could all do with a shot in the arm. If Gander improves, so does Newfoundland, or wherever they spend their money, but for them to only ship us unemployment, and then we be made laughing stocks by the likes of the Globe and Mail and others, is not very fair either. We have a right to a percentage, a rightful percentage of the Department of National Defence's spending in this Province.

The Minister of Finance, federally, tells us that we should tighten our belts, but he had a fleet of ships and he had it transferred over to flags of convenience so he could hire foreign sailors for dirt wages. We see Minister Axworthy about to inflict more pain on the people of this Province, and the Minister of Defence, Minister Collenette, is he willing to make improvements to defence spending in Newfoundland? That remains to be seen.

This resolution today is a good one, but it should not die here. It should be taken up further with the Federal Government to make sure they are aware of what is happening in this Province. And however you do it, whether you want to rant and rave or continue to negotiate, that committee, the special task force on the Newfoundland economy, which works in conjunction with the Federal Government, should continue to harp on the unequal and unfair treatment of our access to military procurement in this country.

We have the worst unemployment situation in the country. We have the worst rate of unemployment, and if the Federal Government brings down those changes that are rumoured here, they are making the unemployment situation worse, while other provinces enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars of military spending.

We need the committed funding, as I have said. We need operational and maintenance spending. We should not have to be going `hat in hand' to Ottawa. If we are a Province, if we stand for a class of people, it should not always have to be an orphan's fight; we should not always have to be begging for crumbs from a table. They wanted us when it was for the defence of North America, and they should not be allowed to ignore us now. Why should we take their unemployment? We want what is fair. We are not covetous. We are not being fairly treated by the Department of National Defence. We were never, ever, treated fairly.

The Member for Gander, the new member, I congratulate him for putting this in place today. I said earlier, what is good for Gander is good for Newfoundland. There are other places, other businesses in this Province that, given the chance, can get in on operational maintenance and the procurement of Canadian funds in national defence in this country. But we want it open, and this committee, this economic renewal, this new task force, federal and provincial ministers, the Premier and the Prime Minister should be able to make sure that we get our fair share.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased today to get up in this debate. The first thing I would obviously do is congratulate the Member for Gander on an excellent presentation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - a first-rate effort by the Member for Gander on the issues that are facing his district, Mr. Speaker. As usual, of course, when the member makes a good speech and shows exactly why he has the support of his people you get the naysayers on the other side saying different things.

The first person who was up after he spoke was the Member for Kilbride who said: I can assure the people of this Province he won't be sitting on this side of the House when the next election is called and the votes are counted. I say to him, like the Prime Minister of Canada said when he was Leader of the Opposition just a few short years ago: I wouldn't speak too quickly if I were the Member for Kilbride. I wouldn't speak too quickly about whether that member is going to be on the government side or on the opposite side next time.

Because I'm sure they got the Omnibus Atlantic survey today. Oh, look here, yes. I would say it is more than the Member for Kilbride who have had a serious look at the Omnibus poll today. I would say the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had to have a quick call to old Lassinger. I would say there were a lot of calls to old Lassinger today. I would say there were a lot of calls put in to the old Lassinger file today and said: Now, you had better come back. You got me in three votes above, but my god, get down here, something has happened to the Tory Party! Something dramatic has happened.

For a little while this summer, around July, August, the dead of summer, I guess the people were half asleep and when they called them up from the polling company they asked them if they recognized the Leader of the Opposition. I suppose, half-asleep, they said: Uh-uh, and they wrote them down for yes. But obviously now since the Fall has come along and we've had the House of Assembly open, and we've had the Leader of the Opposition here asking silly questions day after day, they phone up now and they ask: Did you hear the Leader of the Opposition? Do you know her? There is an emphatic: Yes, I know her, and I will never, no never, vote for that person there to be Premier of the Province.

Obviously, we have seen a dramatic turnaround in public opinion. Here we have sixteen points changed over in three short months. Obviously, our Leader, the Premier of this Province, who is facing tough times and dealing with them in the kind of Liberal manner that we are - fairness and balance are the hallmarks of this government. Obviously, now that they have seen five or six weeks of the Leader of the Opposition coming out here with her grandiose schemes about whether the Prime Minister has offered some kind of a robe or something or other in turn for this and that and the other thing. I mean, the people, when they are called now by the polling company, don't hesitate. They bark into the phone: Don't talk about Verge, don't talk about the Tory party, we've had enough of that.

Now, we have seen the results - apart from the fact that she has taken a dramatic tumble in public opinion. She is now ten points behind when she was six points ahead of our Leader - a sixteen-point change.

AN HON. MEMBER: What caused it (inaudible)?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I think a number of significant things have caused it, Mr. Speaker. The first thing, I think, that caused it is that she has actually gone on tv and has said for the last time that she is not going to vote for the referendum, or is it, that she is going to vote for the referendum, is that what it is? I am not sure. Well, maybe it was the fact that she said she wanted fifty-two members before she got the leadership and now she doesn't want or - I don't know, maybe she still wants fifty-two members and then she comes along, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: She wants forty.

MR. DUMARESQUE: She wants forty. No, that's the would-be leader, that's the man who wants to be leader, that's the real leader who is over there, Mr. Speaker, he wants forty, and he really understands this Province I can tell you, he wants forty; he wants two seats in Labrador to have everybody from Nain to L'Anse-au- Clair, 1,400 kilometres, served by one member, but that's okay, you can still go in and take Churchill Falls and Goose Bay - Happy Valley down to Northwest River and still have one seat in Labrador.

Now here is a man who would be Premier; here is a man who understands this Province, Mr. Speaker, but I say that obviously, you can't always count on your leader to be able to get over the hump and those seats that you want at election time, it counts on whether the party itself is in good standing. So, yes, they had to ask the people of this Province: Do you support the Liberal Party, if an election were held today or do you support the Tory Party or do you even know about the NDP Party, but when they asked the question this time, in three months there was a 6 per cent or 8 per cent lead in the public opinion polls for the Liberal Party.

Now, three months after, the people have seen the performance of the Leader, seen the policies of the Tory Party over there, we now have a 23 per cent lead, a 23 per cent difference, 23 per cent lead. Mr. Speaker, even with all the articulation, even with all the eloquence, even with all the intelligence that comes out of the Deputy Leader and the House Leader and the Member for Placentia, even with all of that, that today, I am sorry to say that if there were an election today, there wouldn't be one person on the other side of this House. Now that's not very nice. I don't think that we want to see that, I don't think we would like to see that, no, I mean, we want the Member for Gander back yes, he is going to be back here but we would like to see a couple. The Member for Green Bay, I think the place would be a worse place if he wasn't back here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps we shouldn't run anybody against him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, probably I think we should have a real, solid look at that particular piece of strategy because there are people here who we would like to see continue over there in Opposition so probably, our strategic plan for the next election is to say: Okay, that poor soul, that poor old Tory who doesn't know any different but you know he is - you can't say he doesn't the difference I suppose, you say he is just going on the basis of what he was told by his father and grandfather and whatever and he is not going to really change so maybe, we should say: Listen boys, don't go taking on that member, let's give him a break you know.

The Member for St. John's East Extern, you know. I mean, I don't know if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would not have somebody running against him, he might, I don't know but I think that there are at least, two or three I suppose -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) very harmless.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Very harmless, yes, probably. I know the questions in Question Period have certainly not been - you are not seeing any kind of visible impact on the minister over here I must say, so maybe that would be another seat that we would say: Well, let's have a look at where some things can go wrong. But, Mr. Speaker, you know the Tory popularity in this Province is starting to hurt over in PEI. I mean, we have a leader over there, a female leader over there, Ms. Pat Miller and obviously having another female leader here seems to be rubbing off because three months ago they had a poll taken over there that said that there were 33 per cent in the dead of summer when people were batting golf balls all over the place and waking up and didn't know who was there, but now that the House is open again and now that the questions are being asked and the reality is setting in and they have to decide who is the Premier, who is the Leader of the Opposition, they get the call over in PEI now, in the last three months, and here she is, this long, this long, in three months, gone again, down another ten points over there, and the president of the party over there said that the numbers came as a shock. We will have to go sit down and look over these numbers very carefully before we decide what we are going to do next. Well, I say to him, look at what is going to happen to the Tory Party in Newfoundland and he will know what to do next. He will know what to do next, because I predict that they will not be having the same leader over there in the next election coming around in a few short months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I don't know. I don't hear too many of those calls. As a matter of fact, I see the Calvert calculus very busy over there. I see him adding them up now, how many pieces. Will I take two barrels, three barrels, four barrels? How many barrels for White Bay, how many barrels for Fogo? I think that he is over there doing his arithmetic now. Old Colonel and old Mary Brown are going to get another bonanza.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would say that there have been calls made. Make sure that around the middle of April or the first of May... The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, I would say, will see a little bump in Newfoundland Farm Products around that time. There will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: A run on chicken.

MR. DUMARESQUE: There will be a run on the chicken again, and Mr. Sub, I suppose, the people who don't like him down in some areas of this Province might not want the dinner box so they will be looking for the sub, so I am sure that the orders are all there. Now it is going to be difficult, because obviously she has the former Premier in Vancouver, the other former Premier up in law school now in Ottawa - he is on side - the former, former Premier down in Florida - he is upside down right now; he doesn't know where he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on a bus.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He is on a bus heading for - hopefully nobody knows where he is going because he doesn't want anybody else to know where he is going, so she does have those kinds of contacts. She can probably draw on Laschinger again, so I think that what the Calvert calculus is doing over there now is twisting the arm of old Dow Jones from Menihek and saying: Now, I need another bucket because, for God's sake, Alec, let's not lose it by three this time. If we can do it, get that extra money out for that extra bucket of chicken, another breast for Fogo. Let's not lose it, because we know that the wheels are spinning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten wings for St. Anthony.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Ten wings for St. Anthony; coming right up, no problem. We know today that the Tory Party is over there in disarray. Actually, I called the other day, the week before last, and I tried to get the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. The operator said: Well, that's the Leader of the Opposition. I said: Yes, but doesn't she have a party? `No, there is nothing registered for the party.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, now I think they have somebody listed up towards Signal Hill there, some household or something. I don't know if it is registered. I don't know what the number is for Mary Brown's down in that area - maybe it is the one down there - but apparently now the official PC Party is somewhere along by Signal Hill. There is no registered office.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a phone booth on the corner down there.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Is there?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, I would say if you checked that you would probably find an answering machine. This is what is left of the Tory Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. Please leave your beep and we will try to get back to you, but we are not sure if we have anybody to make the calls.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, I tell you, she is in very sad shape over there right now, and I know that there are members over there, House Leader, deputy House Leader, deputy, deputy House Leader, the deputy, deputy, deputy House Leader, who are definitely out there now saying, boys we can't put up with this. You know we have been here a long time now. We are not too happy over here but we know that if we don't do something about this, we are going to be down where PEI is to one seat in the Legislature. They will be over there where Valcourt has made a valiant effort to come back over in New Brunswick. He is so pleased because he got six or seven of the fifty-four seats over there. He is pretty pleased but, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Member for Gander will be returned to this Legislature as soon as the writ is dropped. There is no doubt that all members on this side will be returned in fine form. My only fear is that parliamentary democracy won't be able to prevail.

I think that we could very well have an unfortunate circumstance in this Province like they had in New Brunswick on a couple of occasions, like they had in PEI and I think that we are going to have to put the brakes on, I really do. Fifty-five percent.. we are now three points ahead of the national Liberal Party. Now before they were saying that our popularity was due to the federal Liberal government and it is no doubt they are tremendously popular, there is no doubt that they have done a lot of things right but today, Mr. Speaker, we now have the results of the national polls out and it shows that they are three points ahead of the national polls. Obviously, we are standing on our own here in this Province. We are acknowledging that what we are doing we do not want to do. We would not want to make some of the changes that we want to make but, Mr. Speaker, we know full well that we have a responsibility to the people to do it so we are going to continue to have a progressive legislative agenda. We are going to continue to have strong leadership. We are going to continue to advocate the principles of Liberalism and I guess at the end of the day, if there is neither one there, that is all we can do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I have more insight to give to the hon. Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. opponents for that warm round of applause.

I have been in this House now, Mr. Speaker, half a dozen years or so and to hear people from the government benches talk about the principles of Liberalism is a bit much because I hear Steve Neary on the television panels every week espousing the principles of Liberalism and wondering why the government that calls itself a Liberal government under the name of the Liberal Party, is actually in the House of Assembly behaving as it is. What we have is a right wing cut, slash, hard-hearted government that somehow individuals in it still claim to be a Liberal government.

In the very first term, Mr. Speaker, when I was elected I very quickly saw the change in the Liberal government running for election and the Liberal government in office. Mr. Speaker, whatever you want to call the Wells administration it is in no way, shape or form anything remotely resembling anything that the citizens of this Province vaguely understand to be related to the word Liberal. There is nothing Liberal over there, nothing Liberal whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, every dissident in the Liberal back bench knows all too well that the hon. member has to report to the Premier. They have to watch very carefully what they do and say in front of the hon. member. Let's get one thing straight. Mr. Speaker, we saw here today the Minister of Social Services hiding out in the Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of noise in this House is too high and I ask hon. members to restrain themselves.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We saw here today in the House the Minister of Social Services hiding from the press having been caught in her own game in an answer she gave the other day under Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, where she made a comment and an accusation against a colleague of mine knowing full well that he had right of rebuttal. The minister got herself in a bit of hot water. The press were out here today and when my friend for St. Mary's - The Capes went out for his scrum they were all over him like hornets around honey. Then in due course they could not get the hon. minister to respond to their queries even to the point where they had to chase her inside and knock on the caucus room door looking for the hon. minister to come out and face the music, and as for the hon. Minister of Education talking about relevance he was somewhat less than quick in coming forward to complain about the relevance of his friend for Eagle River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eagle River won't (inaudible)

MR. HEWLETT: It is all a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. members opposite made many jokes about chicken and so on and so forth, and talked about sending a few wings up to St. Anthony and so on. What we are here about today is wings for Gander, and I am not talking about chicken. We are here about wings for Gander but you would never know it when listening to the Member for Eagle River even though there are wings in the name of the district. It is wings for Gander we are talking about and the actions of the federal government with regard to the armed forces and the way they treat that particular air force base, and with regard to the way the federal government is about to treat that particular airport regarding air traffic controllers and the hundreds of jobs involved. Those are the kind of things. We are talking about whether or not Gander will have wings in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I have been through this before. When I worked for the former Premier of the Province I was there when Harry Steele pulled EPA out of Gander and the government of the day wanted to take on the federal government, but the mayor and the deputy mayor, the former Minister of Finance in this House, were Liberals in Gander and they fought the PC government of Newfoundland and Labrador in its intent to put the blocks to Ottawa and put some sort of stop, or something to stop Harry Steele from pulling EPA out of Gander. I went through that.

Then we had George Baker not that long ago spilling the beans on the federal government, the MP for Gander, spilling the beans on what was coming down the pipe for Gander in terms of cuts to its military presence. It is passing strange that Mr. Baker who was in possession of this terrible, terrible knowledge held it back until after the by-election in Gander. Those who were intimately involved in the by-election in Gander know that the Liberal Party won that by a whisker and the way they won it was because George Baker spent the entire polling day on the phone calling people with personal connections, calling in his IOUs and sitting on the knowledge that his federal Liberal government was soon to gut Gander, but his commitment to the Liberal Party was greater than his commitment to anything. Mr. Baker sat on the news about pending military cuts and worked the phones all election day and got the hon. member elected by a squeaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (inaudible) Green Bay the next time I guarantee you.

MR. HEWLETT: I say to the hon. Member for Eagle River that come the next time there will be no Green Bay, come the next time I hope to be a candidate for the PC Party in the district of Windsor - Springdale, and if the people of Central Newfoundland do not like the concept of a district for Windsor - Springdale they can reject the Liberal government. The people of Windsor - Springdale, the people involved in that area, rejected the Liberal government flat out in the education referendum and I sincerely hope and pray they will reject them flat out again come the next general election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: Green Bay district voted 63 per cent, no, in the referendum and the former town of Windsor voted 68 per cent, no, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, that is up to the people of Windsor - Springdale as to whether or not they want to support me. They've seen what the Liberal government has offered them. They've seen the way that the Liberal government forced, supported an amalgamation of the town of Grand Falls - Windsor, only to see it mocked by the way they redrew the electoral boundary seats. Not that far down the road is the town and the District of Gander. The Liberal government kept the Gander town as one seat, no two ways about that, and they kept the seat in a by-election. I will give them credit for that.

But how they did it was to withhold the truth from the people of Gander and the Liberal MP who worked so hard for the new Member for Gander withheld the truth until after the by-election. I would dare to suggest that even the Liberal candidate, now the Liberal Member for Gander, had a fair inkling of what his Liberal colleagues in Ottawa were about to bring about once he was safely elected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: The hon. Member for St. John's South again is making his derogatory remarks with regard to the leadership process our party went through. All they talk about is wings and chicken. But as I said earlier, I mean, we are talking about wings for Gander here today, we aren't talking about chicken. We are talking about wings for Gander which are being clipped by the Liberal Party of Canada!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: The Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador sat by while Pierre Trudeau and Harry Steele pulled the tail feathers out of Gander, and today they sit by while Clyde Wells and Jean Chrétien clip the wings of the people of Gander. The new Member for Gander, his resolution here today comes a little too late. Because if he had only spoken of these matters during the election, if he had only stood up and fought for the people of Gander during the election, he wouldn't have won by a squeaker. He might have won by a comfortable margin.

AN HON. MEMBER: A win is a win. You'd know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: A win is a win, yes, the hon. Member for St. John's South is totally versed on slim victories, Mr. Speaker.

What we are talking about here is the way the federal government in general with regard to this Province has not given this Province a fair shake in military spending. Given the fact that they have a wimpy, soft-spoken Liberal government down here totally beholden to their Liberal cousins upalong, it can clip the wings of the town of Gander, it can clip the wings of the town of Goose Bay with regard to its military base. It can totally eliminate it, the presence of the militia regiment, the Royal Newfoundland regiment that is located in the east end of St. John's. It can do all that with impunity because the towns concerned are represented by Liberals, and a Liberal will never stand up to his party.

Some of them go through the motions. I've heard a lot of screams of dissension from those Liberal benches over there over the last number of months. I'm sure the Member for Eagle River has a lot of names in his dirty little black book. I'm not asking that they come and join our party, but I haven't seen a parade of them over to that far corner to sit as independents where they can maintain a degree of credibility with regard to their own character. They continue to yap and yelp, like the Member for Eagle River, from the back benches of the Liberal party but they haven't got the nerve to take a stand and walk across that floor and sit over there. At least have some guts. Stand for what you believe in.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I have a red book, not a black book.

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you have a red book, and I read from the red book in question period yesterday. I read from the red book where it said that ferry systems will be treated like roadways. You pay $0.25 a kilometre to people as expenses on the roadways, and in Long Island, Green Bay, you are charging $9 a kilometre. So much for your red book. Stick to your black book, you're better at it.

I only regret that a severe case of post-nasal drip has somewhat inhibited my ability to speak and has made my throat somewhat sore. Otherwise I think I would be really heaving it out of me here today with regard to this Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle River flashes his poll around. I saw another poll not that long ago that is very relevant to the new Member for Gander. I saw a poll where there wasn't a ghost of a chance of the PC Party coming within a country mile of electing a member in Gander, but with the combination of a good candidate and a strong campaign we came so, so close.

I saw a poll where Brian Peckford stood in this Assembly and looked across at Liberal leader Leo Barry and said: We have a poll, Leo, and you have it, too, and you know the results. It shows if an election were held today the PC Party would win fifty of fifty-two seats, and Leo Barry turned as white as a ghost because he had the same poll and he knew it. Shortly thereafter we went to the people. Things were not going good for the PC Party and government at that time, and had that election lasted another week the PC Party may well have lost. So much for a poll saying you are a country mile ahead. Things change. The Member for Eagle River can crow, but the Member for Gander knows full well how polls can change.

I have had an office in this building for twenty-one years, and I have been in this Assembly now for half-a-dozen, and I have seen polls come and go over the years, and I am neither depressed when they are down nor overjoyed when they are up, because I would not dare get into depression, and too much joy about those kinds of things breeds arrogance, and arrogance I see in abundance as I face the opposite side every day. When I see the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, without his microphone on, openly boast that he would not spend a copper in a Tory district, when you cannot get him to say it with the microphone on, generally speaking. If you ask him a direct question in debate, or in Question Period, is he totally prejudiced against PC districts, he will fudge it, but arrogance oozes out of him.

I saw the Minister of Social Services, as I indicated earlier, yesterday really assassinate the character of the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes - did a good job, too, the way she played it, strategically very good. Today she had to hide. She hid away in the common room, she hid away in here. The press were knocking on the common room door: Minister, minister, come out to play. We want you to pay.

Yesterday the minister had her way. She had her little coup. She stung the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Well, today the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes did not sting the minister; he slew the minister. The minister did not have the nerve to face the music, the music which she wrote, so what we see growing over here is a form of electoral arrogance that in the end will get the party electorally. Sooner or later, be it the next election or the one after, it is going to happen, and the way things are happening these days - change is exponential these days, Mr. Speaker; it does not take long for what years ago would have taken months and sometimes years to change. With modern electronic communication change is almost instant, and you can be on the good side of an avalanche one day and, the way things go this day and age, you can be on the bad side of it tomorrow. So the Member for Eagle River should watch his bobber and watch his boats. Today's good news is tomorrow's bad news.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, my remarks today are about wings for Gander, and how the Liberals in this country have clipped the wings of that particular town, and it is about time someone spoke up about it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: The designated hitter just stepped up, Mr. Speaker. I have about four minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. AYLWARD: It is really hard to speak after these great speeches were made, the last two speeches. The Member for Eagle River is an outstanding member of this House of Assembly. That speech that he gave was inspiring.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will go down in history.

MR. AYLWARD: It will go down in history. It is one of the most different speeches I have ever heard in my entire life, in fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: That's right, and I think I am going to get some copies and send them out I think as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Gander has brought forward a very good resolution and we need to get more defence dollars in this Province, we need to get a lot more defence dollars and as the federal government tries to figure out what it is going to do, it is about time that they look closely at the impact on Newfoundland when it comes to the defence side.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, about five or six years ago, we were trying to get a sea cadet base in Newfoundland, when I was in the opposition, we were trying to get a sea cadet base and we were lobbying the then provincial government of the day, the hon. Brian Peckford and his government, trying to get them to get on side to help us with the sea cadet base out in Stephenville, and by gee, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we had some time trying to get them to even write a letter of support, to write a letter of support.

I remember, I don't know if they remember it, but I have a file that thick over there about trying to get a sea cadet base. We had 75 per cent of the sea cadets in Atlantic Canada who were from Newfoundland and they were all being shipped across to Nova Scotia and we had a chance to get that sea cadet base and we wrote the Government of Newfoundland, I was in opposition asking questions every month and I can remember the Member for Green Bay was up on the eighth floor as a matter of fact advising the Premier, and I remember -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: No, but I don't know what it was, they wouldn't help us but I mean, we had a shot then at the sea cadet base which was about six years ago; there would have been about 200 people working in Newfoundland and would have been a good shot in the arm, unfortunately, we weren't able to get that, Mr. Speaker, but the think is, we have been trying for a while here to do something with it and -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you get since?

MR. AYLWARD: What did we get since? We have been working on a whole range of things, still working on it, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tough question.

MR. AYLWARD: That's right. We are still working on it, yes, that's right. We have been cleaning up, Mr. Speaker, since we got here, we have been cleaning up the finances. We have been cleaning up so I encourage the Member for Gander to keep up the good work because it is a very good resolution and we need to get more defense dollars in Newfoundland and Labrador versus what they are getting in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and as I said -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. AYLWARD: I didn't say anything, what are you talking about.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get more defense dollars in this Province and Gander is an important base in Atlantic Canada for Canada, and it should get the recognition it deserves. We have had some other bases in this Province that should get some more attention also. As a matter of fact we discovered some fuel in Stephenville, that's a former base, we have a lot of work to do there, Mr. Speaker, I tell you.

Anyway, I encourage the Member for Gander to keep up the good work and I am sure that he will continue in his efforts to ensure that Gander gets the strong representation that it deserves, and I am sure that as he goes forward for the next election and wins the next one and brings forward that mandate and help us make sure that as we face the deficit times that the federal government is dealing with, it is good to have a government that is willing to take on the issues in Newfoundland and Labrador and this government is willing to do that, and on that note, Mr. Speaker, I will end off and let the Member for Gander finish up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. VEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say I have heard some very, very interesting debate here this afternoon by some, perhaps very gifted speakers and I must say, some gifted speakers on the opposite side, as much as it pains me to say it. But there are a few -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was Tobin up, was Tobin up?

MR. VEY: Oh no, he wasn't up, no.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about the closeness of the election in Gander past and I must admit, it was certainly a close election, but the poll that was done for 82 per cent or whatever it was for us and 18 per cent or whatever it was for the Tories, I don't know where that poll came from, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you that the most popular representative that Gander district ever had, was the hon. Winston Baker and perhaps the most effective, and arguably the most effective minister that this Province has seen since Confederation, and he won Gander district in 1993 with 54 per cent of the electorate, which is not bad.

Being a relatively unknown candidate of course and running in a by-election makes things a little different then if you are a high profile Cabinet minister running in a general election. People get an opportunity to voice their opinions negatively against the government and so forth and so on. I have to tell members opposite, particularly the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay and the Member for Kilbride that the hard work they put into the campaign nearly done the job. As a matter of fact, I was losing the campaign until these fellows came out and the harder they worked the more support I gained. I must say that on election day I went down to buy some chicken to feed to my workers and there wasn't a chicken left in the town of Gander, not one, not a chicken left.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never buy chicken look at what happened to him.

MR. VEY: As a matter of fact, I wanted to buy a bit of chicken for other reasons too because it seemed to have worked in other places.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were trying to catch a Tory were you?

MR. VEY: I was trying to catch a Tory, Mr. Minister, but as a matter of fact, I caught another Tory.

Anyway on a more serious note, Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest today the debate on my motion by both sides of the House and I am very, very pleased that there appears to be unanimity in supporting the motion which I believe to be a very significant motion and a very important one at this time. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the residents of Gander district, much to perhaps the chagrin of the Opposition benches, are very pleased with the efforts of this particular government, very pleased that the Premier seen fit to appoint and to put a Cabinet committee in place to look at the issues in Gander and certainly the issues in the rest of the Province concerning transportation and military spending. I expect, as does the residents of my district, great things to come from this committee. Military spending in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to earlier, is about 2.2 per cent of the national budget. Now in the past, when military bases have closed there has been a great rush by the military and the government of the day to put in place something that would replace the military spending.

I want to refer to something that happened back in 1989, with the closure of the base in Summerside. Now Gander is not being closed. I think it is very important for us to realize that but it is also important to recognize that the federal government does not operate military bases strictly for military reasons. As I alluded to earlier, if that were the case then perhaps there would not be a base building boom going on right now in Trenton, Ontario, but none the less with the closure of the base in Summerside PEI the federal government spent in excess of $55 million to revitalize that local economy.

At that time there was an engine aircraft rebuilding plant that was slated to go in Gander at that particular time and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency was told by the then Tory government that no way could that go in Newfoundland, it had to go in Summerside PEI, and assistance in the neighbourhood of $4.4 million was given to that particular engine manufacturing plant. Be that as it may, the town of Summerside, PEI, are right now better off without their military base than they were when they had it.

Now, we are not asking, in these days of restraint, that Gander be given $60, $70, $80, or $100 million to replace the infrastructure because as I said before the base is not closed, but what we do expect is recognition from the federal government that the downsizing of military operations in the town of Gander, and indeed in Newfoundland in general, is very, very negative and very, very hard on the rather fragile economy we are facing now, and we will face over the next two or three years, and it is unacceptable to us.

To refer to some of the comments made by my hon. friend for Green Bay, I think it is, concerning the knowledge of the base closing in Gander during the election, I have here a copy of a letter from the hon. Minister Collenette dated July 10, I think it is, saying that the cutbacks at CFB Gander would be thirty-five military and eight civilians. I do not know what happened to change those figures since July, and that is part of what this government is about to find out.

It was also interesting to hear the hon. Member for Green Bay talk about the effort the then Tory government put into saving EPA and saving Air Canada. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was on both committees to save EPA and save Air Canada and if it were not for the Tory government in St. John's we probably would have saved them. I do not mean that in any political way, that is the fact of the matter. Bawling and squalling by the then Premier about different things that were going on in the Province, and which the hon. members opposite want us to do, leads to bawling and squalling back in your face and it is not an acceptable way for us to approach things.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the approach this government is taking by appointing a high level Cabinet committee to look at defence issues and to look at transportation issues in general is, I believe, the right approach to take, but I will also throw down the challenge to the committee, that we have to be forceful, we have to be serious, and we have to get government to commit at least the same amount of defence spending for this Province that they have committed in the past.

I'm not going to take much more time, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank all the members of the government side and the members opposite for participating in this debate. I hope that bigger and better things will come of it. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against, `nay'.

The resolution is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment may I add my own congratulations to those which I know other members made to my friend for Gander on a very auspicious first speech in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: We look forward to hearing from him for many years to come as he makes his way from the far upper corner down to....

MR. DECKER: Up to your immediate right?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend for the Straits of Belle Isle says up to my immediate right. There are those who say there is nobody to the right of me in this world these days. It is not true, but 'tis true that they say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend for Bonavista South, the tie is -

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not one Miller Ayre brought back (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It is certainly not the one Miller Ayre brought back. It may be comparable to the one Miller Ayre brought back. It is a Cabot tie which I bought in Bristol out of my own pocket. I'm told they are now for sale here in St. John's, but I will tell members it costs more to buy them in St. John's than it does in Bristol, not counting the cost of the trip over and back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I forget what I paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That sounds right. I saved $20 on the tie and spent $2,000 on the trip. No wonder the country is in trouble, if that is the kind of economics, Mr. Speaker, that is running it.

In any event I think it is a very handsome tie. The people in Bristol, (inaudible) and his committee have done a splendid job. They've got all sorts of lovely souvenirs for sale. The Mayor of Bonavista, Mr. Tremblett, and his wife were there and represented the community and Province absolutely splendidly. I think my friend for Bonavista South, if he spoke with them, would be told they had a good time and feel it was an extremely worthwhile event. Maybe the Mayor bought a tie too. I don't know about that.

The plan for tomorrow is to deal with four bills, which I think we feel is a realistic expectation. They are, on today's Order Paper, Orders 26 through 29. One of them is "An Act Respecting The Investigation Of Fatalities", where we are well into second reading. Then there is the Leaseholds in St. John's Act. Then there is the Limitations Act, and then there is "An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For Non-Elected Public Office Holders", and we hope to finish those in time that we can get home tomorrow night to watch whatever is on television. Mr. Speaker, all of those bills will be sent to committee after second reading assuming the House, in fact, reads them a second time.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, in response to the repeated and urgent admonitions of my friend from Burin - Placentia West -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from Grand Bank, I am never sure what the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West is at, and I know my friend from Grand Bank is never sure what the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West is at, but I would rather have him where I can see him, in front of me, and keep an eye on him, than behind me where I cannot keep an eye on him, I have to say to my friend.

In respect to his urgent and repeated admonitions, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.

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