The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, from 1990 to 1993, this government has closed 511 acute care hospital beds in the Province, which is a reduction of 20 per cent. Now, I suspect the real number is closer to one-third, because some hospitals have listed bed closures as temporary, even though the beds have been closed for a year or more. I ask the minister: How many additional acute care beds will close this year in 1994-1995 as a result of Budget cuts taken in this year's Budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again is at his usual tricks of alarming the public. He alarmed the public yesterday and he was chastised by one of the hospital administrators, and so he should be; he is always at it.

Mr. Speaker, we have proposed that certain beds be closed this year and the process is ongoing between us and the hospital administration and boards; this process is not completed yet and when it does, health care will not suffer one iota because we are closing beds and encouraging boards to move into more out-patient days and same-day surgery. That is the modern trend right across Canada and everywhere else and we, in this Province, are proud of what we are doing in that regard. Health care will not suffer. All that's making health care suffer in this Province is the hon. member opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He still hasn't answered the question and I will just make brief reference to Sister Elizabeth Davis, the person he is referring to. The memo sent by her to the staff at the hospital indicated budgetary restraints is one of the reasons for those hospital closures. I ask the minister to read that.

Hospital administrators and professionals in the health care system have warned you time and time again, that these cuts are ravaging health care in the Province because there is no funding in place for an alternative community-based health care system.

Now, the minister keeps talking about a grand strategy for community-based health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to the question.

MR. SULLIVAN: When is the minister going to back up his words with action? And when will he deliver support for community-based health care?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we are moving as rapidly as we can to set up regional community health care boards, and that is our strategy.

Right now, there exists in the Province, in various parts, a reasonably good home care system, such as in the Gander area and the St. John's area, and some hospitals have established this. However, I must admit, it is not consistent throughout the Province, which is why we are setting up the regional community health care boards, and as we proceed, these things will be looked after.

I notice a proposal from Dr. Turner, in The Express, where he suggests that people who are on NCARP - and that may be of some interest to the hon. member, that people who are on these packages might be diverted into home care.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have read that article, and I read the letter prior to publication, actually; I got a copy.

Now, hospitals are being forced to shorten hospital stays to accommodate budget cuts, and it isn't working because there is no backup system in the communities. The minister knows it, and this Province has the highest rate of re-admission of any province in this country.

Will the minister call a halt to his dismantling of the hospital-based health system until he has a plan in place, and a strategy, for community-based health care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem here. The member is manufacturing these. You know what he is doing? He is dialling these numbers, phoning all the hospitals and saying, `Hello, this is Loyola Sullivan, your critic in Opposition. I would like to speak to the executive director, please.' `I am sorry, Sir, the director is not available.' `Well, let me speak to the assistant director.' `Now, have you stopped beating your wife, assistant director?' That is the way he is getting on, Mr. Speaker. It is time for him to give up this nonsense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people who are waiting for hospital beds, and the families of people who have died waiting for hospital beds, would not find your comments very funny, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have letters from people who died. I will give them to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You had letters from people who died. Was that before they died?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, before they died - that's right.

MR. TOBIN: My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Premier if the results of the Corporate Research polling done for CBC, which showed a massive plunge in support for the government, the Liberal Party, and for his leadership, has finally convinced him that the people are firmly opposed to the sale of Hydro? I ask the Premier now, will you bow to their wishes and withdraw the Hydro privatization legislation as you promised to do on March 24?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we are going to govern this Province on the basis that we've outlined in our policy statements to provide for the best interest of the people of the Province. We are not going to run and cower from pressures that the Opposition create to try to fabricate problems where none really exist. The Minister of Health just identified the actions being taken by the Member for Ferryland. We know that other actions have been taken by other members. We know that the Leader of the Opposition did the same thing with the pulp and paper companies on another matter. We know the approach they take to try to create difficulties.

They are not interested in governing the Province in such a way as to make sure that we provide for the best interest of the people. They've ceased to become Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and have become `Her Majesty's Loyal Obstruction.' We don't intend to allow that to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people who oppose the sale of Hydro are not ignorant or hysterical on the issue as the Premier would like everyone to believe. They are opposed because they know the deal is bad for them and for the Province and more and more of them suspect the Premier has a hidden agenda. Does the Premier care that his stubborn refusal to withdraw the legislation is destroying public trust in the government and in his own leadership?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I've never suggested that the people who have expressed opposition are hysterical. What I have said is that the opposition has been provoked by an hysterical Opposition opposite. The criticism of the Hydro proposal has been generated on the basis of the hysteria created by these emotional arguments.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility to make sure that we take steps to ensure that the people are fully informed as to all the issues, and the real need for government to do this in the best interests of the people of the Province. We intend to continue to promote that kind of understanding of the government's policy, the basis for it and the value to the people of the Province in the future. We intend to continue it.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: We're aware of your propaganda campaign that you have started even though you have refused to say how much it costs.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier may say that the public support may come and go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, opposition to the sale of Hydro is not a silly whim that is going to go away. The people of this Province will not forgive nor will they forget, I say to the Premier. Do you care, Mr. Premier, that public mistrust, caused by the Hydro issue, is eroding trust and confidence in the government on all issues; and are you blind to the fact that you are losing the moral authority to govern in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It's incredible that a person, a member of this House who was a member of the Peckford administration, could even speak those words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Can you imagine! No wonder he laughs and smirks. I'm not surprised.

Mr. Speaker, he also mentioned the cost of the information program that the government has undertaken. We don't have the detailed cost. I can say to the members opposite, that it won't be one-tenth of what they used to spend on advertising with their ministers pictures in the paper. It won't be one-tenth of what they used to spend on that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the acting Minister of Tourism -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. MANNING: My questions today are for the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Mr. Speaker, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador has embarked on a new initiative in a customer service training program called SuperHost; an excellent step forward, I might add. I'd like to ask the minister: What type of training in customer and public relations is received by persons who obtain work at provincial parks in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: There's a very short training period, Mr. Speaker, that's conducted by - the Public Service Commission, I believe, is involved with it. For all student jobs, whether in the parks, in our chalets around the Province or on the ferry system, it's a very small one week course, basically.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Almost every employee of government, or those in private business, are evaluated and monitored continuously. I would like to ask the minister: How are people who work at provincial parks monitored to make sure they are performing their required duties, and most importantly, that they are treating our visitors with the utmost in customer service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, through our regular system our permanent employees and managers of the park system, those who are there permanently, keep an eye on that. We have had very few complaints over the last number of years, whether it be through tourism, the students we hire there, or the young people that work in our parks. In fact we received many complimentary letters.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will pass on to the minister a couple of pictures taken at Cape St. Mary's ecological reserve by a group of tourists last summer that show the interpretation office closed down at 4:30 p.m. on a bright August evening. The cardboard box sign hanging on the door says, "We are closed. Please do not disturb us."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: Does he believe our tourism industry should shut down at 4:30 p.m., and would he attempt to make sure that a shift system is put in place at our provincial parks, and that the employees are trained to know that visitors do not disturb us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's suggestions as fact. I don't know whether it is fact or not, but I can only assume that he is being sincere. That is one of our best locations, the bird sanctuary. I see him ready to table these documents. It is a pretty poor facility out there and I can tell him that this government negotiated a $1.2 million interpretation centre which tenders will be let for tomorrow, a brand new facility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: I can also tell him that we have hired four students, I think from the hon. member's area, and I consulted with the hon. member.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I understand that in his absence either the acting minister or the Premier may be familiar with the topic I wish to address.

The City of St. John's has received an application to develop a thirty-five unit apartment complex at 130 LeMarchant Road in St. John's. That is the site of the former Prince of Wales College. The total value of the proposal is $3 million. The city held a pubic hearing on this matter on May 10 in accordance with the City of St. John's Act, to rezone the property from institutional to apartment high density. The application must now be processed to rezone the property from institutional to apartment high-density. The application must now be processed under the Urban and Rural Planning Act. This means more delays, more red tape, more bureaucracy. Since this application affects no other municipality and no other governance authority, why must the developer wait for several more months while the formalities of the Urban and Rural Planning Act are processed?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is absent, as my hon. friend noted. I will take the question as notice and make sure he gets a detailed answer as soon as we can, but let me make a couple of points in response to his general comments.

First of all, we are committed to a review of the entire regulatory process aimed at ending or reducing to the absolute, irreducible minimum the sort of red tape of which he is speaking. Because we acknowledge readily there is far too much of it and we would like to see people able to get on with their lawful and proper business affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Secondly - well, the minister has come. I will speak to him and he can answer later. Secondly, let me say that while the law is the law, we have to follow the law. If the Urban and Rural Planning Act requires the minister to follow certain procedures, then we will have to follow them and deal with them and observe the law until that law is changed.

I will have a word with the minister now and before the end of Question Period, we will get the answer to the hon. gentleman's question. In fact, if he wants to send over the script from which he read, it would help the minister to know exactly where we are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the Chair, I will defer the rest of my questions and maybe I will place them later on in Question Period, to the minister.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Memorandum of Understanding between government and the NLTA contains a commitment to develop a system whereby redundant teachers who remain unemployed from one school board would be given priority access to vacant positions in other boards. I would like to ask the Premier: How do you square that with the commitment you made to the churches in the modifications to your proposals for restructuring the education system in which you guaranteed they would retain the right to select suitable teachers for uni-denominational schools and the government would take the responsibility to resolve any conflicts between the exercise of that right and the teachers' collective agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, frankly, I can see the potential for difficulty the hon. member highlights but I would think there would be no difficulty resolving it. Because, quite frankly, it would provide for a greater level of mobility and bumping than now exists for teachers. I would think that the NLTA would welcome a rearrangement that provided an acceptable accommodation for teachers in uni-denominational schools. I would hope that we would be able to negotiate it because it seems such a reasonable thing to do, and the net result of the overall would be to improve the ability to develop mobility for teachers across school boards generally. My thinking at this stage is that we would have little or no difficulty working out an arrangement acceptable to the NLTA.

In the end, it is clear that collective agreements can't supersede statutory or constitutional rights, and we have to provide for those, and collective agreements must, of course, be subject to those rights. I would think there would be no difficulty with the NLTA because it is such a reasonable proposition.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Looking at both documents, I think the government would find itself in quite a bind. I can't see how you can honour both commitments. I would like to ask the Premier: Which one do you intend to keep? Do you stand by the Memorandum of Understanding with teachers or do you stand by your guarantee with the church leaders? I say to the Premier, you can't have it both ways, so which commitment are you going to honour?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: What commitment is he talking about? I know the commitment I've given to the churches, but what is the other commitment the hon. member is talking about? I don't understand his position. I think he is talking about something that really doesn't exist.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, if you read the Memorandum of Understanding, the tentative agreement with the NLTA, Mr. Speaker, at the top of page 4, it says: `The development of a system whereby redundant teachers who remain unemployed from one school board would be given priority access to vacant positions in other school boards',' That is obviously conflicting and contradictory to the Memorandum of Understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, I say to the Member for Eagle River. You are not allowed to think for yourself and you are certainly not allowed to speak on your feet, I say to the member, so he should be quiet and perhaps he would become better educated as a result.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, any statement there does not really conflict with that. Anything that is done can only be in the schools where we can control the teachers, where we can control - or the ordinary regulation can control the appointment of teachers. If there are schools where the ability to appoint is beyond the control of government, that obviously can't be met.

Now, if the hon. member doesn't understand that, I have great confidence that the NLTA does.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have great confidence that the membership of the NLTA understands very well, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, very, very well.

I want to ask the Premier this. The details for implementing the labour force adjustment strategies contained in the Memorandum of Agreement with the NLTA have to be worked out between government and the NLTA within thirty days of the signing of the agreement. Since this is a key issue as well with your talks with the church leaders on restructuring the school system, will they be invited to participate in the discussions?

They are concerned about it, I say to the Premier. He can shake his head and turn red all he likes. There is a problem here and you have to address it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: There is no problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to give the President of Treasury Board a chance to answer the question.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader is being very confusing in his interpretation of the Memorandum of Understanding. The Memorandum of Understanding refers to a labour force adjustment strategy that we will hope to work out within thirty days of the signing of a collective agreement. That discussion will take place in the thirty days involving the school boards - which, in essence, are representatives of the churches - the government, and the NLTA. If, at the end of the thirty days, there is no agreement, then it can be extended a bit more, but ultimately, if there is no agreement, it is put off until the next round of collective bargaining. So this is an attempt by government, school boards and NLTA, to sit down at some point in time and work out a labour force adjustment strategy.

The points that would be included in that are not defined clearly. There is no definitive list, and always, of course, anything that is worked out would be subjected to suitability and currently modern standards, and that kind of thing, so there is no conflict -absolutely no conflict - between that and anything that may or may not be worked out with the churches.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Last September, the university made arrangements with the Department of Forestry and Agriculture for two graduate students in forestry to complete the research work for their graduate thesis this summer at the model force on the West Coast. I want to ask the minister: Did he cancel those arrangements with the university?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question under advisement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: The definitive - I will get the information.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it was two students who were involved. I know now, since, that there have been alternate arrangements made for at least one of the students, and the other I am not sure of, as of right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: What districts were they from?

MR. SHELLEY: - but that isn't the point. Why did the minister interfere with the pre-arrangement that was made with the university way back in September?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as every Member of this House of Assembly knows, we get hundreds and hundreds of applications from students this time of year for jobs. I am not aware of any commitment that has been made to provide long-term work for students, or that any student is guaranteed work year after year after year.

Now, the member seems to be implying that those students had an understanding that they would work year after year after year because of some arrangement we had with the university. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't think he knows what he is talking about, but I will undertake to determine exactly what the situation is with those two particular students.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that I do know what I am talking about, with the calls I have had to my office concerning this case. It was brought to me because they couldn't get the answers from the minister.

Now, there were two students who are doing graduate work, thesis work that was supposed to be done this summer. Since September these students have said that they have a commitment that they would be working on model force on the West Coast, that was part of the thesis and that was how they would finally graduate. Now, at the eleventh hour, as a matter of fact, last Wednesday, these students were told that that position was no longer available and that there was some interference somewhere along the line, that they don't understand it as of now. I would like to ask the minister if he knows anything about that interference.

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

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of any interference in respect of the position raised by the member, and based on most of his questions, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that he talk to the university and maybe he will get the answers.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, earlier on in Question Period, I directed a question to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and since he has taken his seat now and he has the text of the question that I raised, I wonder if he would like to comment on the concerns of the City of St. John's and the Urban and Rural Planning Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my hon. friend, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, would be asked to present this and ask this question in the House, because it was only yesterday that this was brought to my attention, and the City of St. John's has a habit, or has, I suppose, since I have been appointed as minister, to be contacting me personally in my department on issues such as this.

The answer to the question is, yes, I do have the authority, and, as far as I know, this has been taken care of some two or three days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the minister that 70 per cent of my constituents live in the city of St. John's; therefore, I certainly do have a responsibility to raise those issues. I would also like to quote for the minister from a letter from the Mayor of St. John's, who says: `I have written the Premier twice on this matter and also discussed it with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Deputy Minister, but to no avail.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out here that it is ironic that in the Speech from the Throne, there were references to facilitating economic development and reducing bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, can he today, send a message to the City of St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HODDER: that they would not be inhibited in their development in the future by this kind of bureaucratic red tape, that his deputy minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I can't hear.

MR. HODDER: - send out a circular to the various municipalities asking for suggestions as to how to cut the red tape.

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

I am having trouble hearing whether the hon. member has a question or not, so if hon. members would desist, I would be in an easier position to make a decision on it? I didn't hear the last two sentences the hon. member said. Did the minister?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am not being sarcastic and I am not trying to be facetious basically, I will be quite honest and I think the hon. members on the other side will admit that I have been pretty accessible both to every member on that side of the House and every council in this Province, and for the hon. member to get up and say that the Mayor of St. John's has written the Premier and written me and has not had a reply, I take exception to that.

MR. TOBIN: He didn't say it.

MR. REID: I take exception to the fact that the Mayor said it; that's right, I take exception to the fact that the Mayor said it. The Mayor - on several occasions in the City of St. John's, in the last twelve months that I have been minister in this department, I have done things for him to accommodate little things like this and I totally agree, the City of St. John's have their planners, have their rules and regulations, but, there is such a thing as Acts in this Province that we have to abide by, and I, as minister, or the Premier, or the Mayor of St. John's, cannot break the law to accommodate people unless we can find ways legally to get around problems like this and to address them.

I will make the commitment to the hon. member, this afternoon when I go back to my office, I will call the Mayor or the people in the City of St. John's, and find out what the problem is on this. As far as I know, this is not a problem. It was supposed to be addressed two or three days ago and I am telling the truth to the member. I say to the member that I am very, very disappointed that the City of St. John's would have to go to the Opposition to get a question on this and make those comments in the House of Assembly in order to succeed in accomplishing what they want to do in that area.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

In the last sitting of the House, I asked the minister the status of the bridge in the intersection at South Brook on the Trans-Canada. The minister undertook at that time to tell me when that project would be undertaken under the Trans-Canada Agreement with the Federal Government. I didn't get an answer from the minister. I subsequently wrote the minister, I put a question on the Order Paper in this sitting of the House, and the minister has not replied to that. I raised the matter in debate with the minister a few days ago, and he scoffed at me and did not give me an answer at the time. So I would now like the minister to answer these questions: one, is the work on the Trans-Canada at South Brook still on the plans of his department; and two, when will those plans be executed?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the hon. member should check his mail, because I definitely wrote and signed a letter in answer to the hon. member's question. Will it be done this year? Absolutely not. Will it be done next year? Maybe. It will be on consideration. I can't prejudge what's going to be done next year. Those decisions will be made during budgetary times next year.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

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

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

I give leave that I will on tomorrow introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the current policy of appointing persons to serve on the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal on a part-time basis has often resulted in lengthy and unreasonable delays in the processing of appeals of Workers' Compensation Act applicants and has, in many cases, caused great hardship for these applicants; and

WHEREAS the current regulations concerning compensation of the tribunal members who serve on a part-time basis, has enabled certain of these members lawfully to claim and receive indefensively large amounts of compensation; and

WHEREAS the current policy whereby tribunal members are appointed by Cabinet and has established the basis for allegations of political patronage and has thereby undermined public confidence that appointees are chosen for their qualifications rather than for reasons of political patronage;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government forthwith to introduce the requisite changes to the provincial legislation whereby, (1) All positions currently on the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal be terminated. (2) The Tribunal shall henceforth consist of three positions; (i) a full time representative of employers, (ii) a full time representative of employees, and (iii) a full time neutral chairperson, and the individuals selected to serve in these three positions on the Tribunal shall be selected and hired independently by the Public Service Commission.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act respecting the Literacy Development Council of Newfoundland and Labrador".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I table today for hon. members' information regarding maintenance income for social assistance recipients which was information asked for during the Estimates Committee on Social Services.

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

MR. WHELAN: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to stand in this hon. House and present a petition on behalf of the people of Brigus Junction. The petition reads as follows:

`To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, a petition of the undersigned residents of the district of Harbour Main humbly sweareth;

WHEREAS the construction season will be starting very soon and there will be approximately one kilometre of new pavement laid from the Trans-Canada Highway in to where the old pavement ends in Brigus Junction; and

WHEREAS with that much of the road paved there are only two kilometres left to repave; and

WHEREAS the condition of the road is causing damage to our vehicles;

WHEREFORE we respectfully request that government repave the remaining two kilometres of road as soon as possible. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.' The petition is dated May 30, 1994.

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the stretch of road in question and I certainly give my wholehearted support to the prayer of this petition. I know that the road is in a very bad state of repair, and although the community of Brigus Junction has a relatively small population, the traffic load on that particular road is very heavy, because it provides access to a number of cottage developments back in the wilderness. So in summer and winter there's quite a heavy traffic load in that particular area.

Again, as the prayer of the petition mentions, the construction companies will be in that area this year. They will be paving one kilometre of road,and I would say that it's probably the most opportune time, or will be the most opportune time in recent years or in time to come, for the extra two kilometres to be paved.

So I would certainly encourage the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to look on it as a top priority and I'm looking forward to a favourable response with regard to this petition, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the Member for Harbour Main in his efforts to get paving for the residents of Brigus Junction. No sweat at all only to - I wish the member had mentioned it to me earlier because he knows where my heart is, my heart is with the crowd wherever they are. In his efforts I hope that the other man, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, is as sympathetic as I am. Now, some people out our way - the Member for Bellevue had some former residents of his living in a place called Placentia Junction. We didn't get much sympathy last year, but that was another case. At this time I do support the Member for Harbour Main in his efforts to make the life of his constituents a bit better.

Thank you.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know how I could possibly refuse to pave it now with support from the hon. Member for Placentia. There must be an action now to go ahead.

Let me say very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that one of the problems I have as minister of the department is the amount of money I receive in the annual Budget for the needs of people right across the Province. I have received quite a number of requests over the past several weeks, since the budgetary decisions were made, and if I had twice as much money at my disposal I still wouldn't be able to come close to satisfying the requests and needs of the people across the Province.

I do understand the petition. I received a letter from the people in that area and also representation from their MHA, and I understand it is just a short piece of road that needs to be done. I have to be quite honest and clear, we don't pave roads or maintain roads in most areas when it is just for the use of cabin owners. If government got into paving roads for cabin owners then we would have to do every access road right across this Province, and we would never be able to find enough money to do it.

I have asked the officials of my department to take a look at this particular piece of road. If there are full time residents on it and if it is the distance that has been put forth in the letter to me, I think a kilometre or a kilometre and a half, then I will have to take a look at it. I can't make any promises until I get the official report back, but I certainly will take an interest in it.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today and present a petition on behalf of forty-seven people from my district, mostly the Mount Carmel area. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, once again a concerned group of citizens of the Province, namely my district, are speaking out against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. We have heard thousands of names come forward here in this hon. House over the past number of months from people across the Province who have more or less said, no, they don't want Hydro privatized.

I believe the government should be starting to get the message now, Mr. Speaker, because they have hear it on open line shows, they have heard it through petitions here in the House, they have heard it through letters to the editor, and they have heard it through polls. We've had three polls conducted in the Province during the past few months, Mr. Speaker, and those polls show that upwards of 70 per cent of the people in this Province are against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Just recently the poll that was done regarding the performance of the government, I am sure, should send a message loud and clear to this government, that the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro is at the heart and soul of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I guess one of the big concerns that has been brought forward to me from the people in my district, is that the changes government have proposed to education in the Province, the health care changes, changes to ATV regulations, or whatever the case may be, if these changes don't suit us in two or three years time we can look to changing them back, but the big concern with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro is that once it is privatized, Mr. Speaker, there is no going back, it is a done deal. This, I guess, is what has most people concerned and uptight about it.

There is a big concern also as to why the Premier and government are intent on privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland Hydro right now doesn't cost the Province one dollar, it isn't a burden to the taxpayers of this Province, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are making money from Hydro. It begs the question as to why the Premier and the government are intent on privatizing this asset that we have.

Mr. Speaker, the people are concerned about who will own Newfoundland Hydro, who will be the shareholders. I'm sure many people in this House are fully aware that there are not too many people in this Province now who can invest a large amount of money in the shares of Newfoundland Hydro. There are thousands of people in this Province who are on fisheries compensation, there are thousands more who are unemployed, there are thousands of people who have resorted to social assistance in this Province, and none of these people will be buying shares. The majority of the shares - I won't say all the shares, Mr. Speaker - will be sold outside this Province and therefore the control of Newfoundland Hydro will be outside this Province.

The Public Utilities Board, in the latest advertisements that are being put forward, show that the Public Utilities Board will still control electricity rates. Everybody knows that is fine when they are dealing with a government owned operation, but once that operation of Newfoundland Hydro becomes private property among private shareholders, and their main aim is to make money, the Public Utilities Board won't have as much say as they have now because a private company will come in from outside the Province. It is a monopoly situation that the new Newfoundland Hydro will have, and the people of the Province will have no choice but to pay whatever these people decide that we are going to pay, Mr. Speaker.

Representing a rural area, Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that the elimination of the rural subsidy over the next four or five years will see major increases in rural Newfoundland's electricity rates, this will cause much difficulty to people who are right now facing difficult times. I don't think the people of the Province can afford to pay any more. I think with the elimination of this rural subsidy, the people will suffer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure to stand in my place and support the petition presented on behalf of forty-seven constituents of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. Mr. Speaker, if the Premier decides to go ahead with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro it will be just another example of the Premier going back on his word; and the Premier certainly has a history of going back on his word.

On March 24, the Premier went on Province-wide television and told the people that he wouldn't or couldn't go ahead with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro if he could not get support for it from the public. Now we have 68 per cent of the people of this Province definitely against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Premier has a history of going back on his word. Back a few years ago when the constitutional debates were on and they were pretty heavy across the country, the Premier of this Province made a statement on national television, I think it was at the time, and he said that if it came down to one province having to say no to the Meech Lake Accord then he wouldn't be able to do that on his own, and he would have to at least go to a referendum within the Province, and if not a referendum at least a vote in the House of Assembly.

What happened, Mr. Speaker? Of course he decided to make the decision all on his own and he did not have a vote in the House of Assembly. That was the first major sign of what the Premier of this Province was up to, and the type of individual that he really is.

Shortly after that, Mr. Speaker, around the same time, the amalgamation issue was brought into this House. He told the people in the Province, and he told the various municipalities, that if the people of this Province were opposed to amalgamation it wouldn't be forced upon them. Well, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of towns that had amalgamation forced upon them - Petty Harbour, Wedgewood Park and a few more - but the only -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Goulds.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Goulds is another area, Mr. Speaker.

The only place that that statement applied was in his own district where people in a few municipalities were opposed to it, and of course they were not amalgamated.

Also, Mr. Speaker, he signed contracts with the public service sector unions and brought legislation in to break the contracts.

Back in 1989 when the Premier of this Province and some of the members opposite were out campaigning to get elected - and they did a good job on it, I must say, they got elected anyway - they did make promises that there would be no patronage appointments. That was a sin past administrations, type of thing. What have we seen? Patronage appointments growing almost daily.

Just a couple right off the top of my head. Of course, the former Member for Placentia, Mr. Hogan, and I think the Member for Fogo was appointed and now he is elected to this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are losing faith in the Premier of this Province and the government of this Province. We now see public funds being spent, thousands and thousands, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, on ad campaigns in the newspapers and on radio. One ad in the paper now, I think, is $2,200 and this started last Friday. So we are going to see that build over the summer, I would imagine.

I suppose when the Premier of the Province started reading the facts that he had here, facts one to eight, and he saw the amount of verbiage that was in the paper in one ad, he must have realized that the people of the Province are not going to read that; it is too long-winded. So what did he do? He start putting in smaller ads, eight smaller ads, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully the public would pick up on one or two here and there. These ads, of course, are definitely misleading - definitely misleading.

One right off the bat here, Mr. Speaker, is fact number four: There will be no layoffs. Now, I think what we have been consistently saying - we weren't necessarily speaking of layoffs, but we were speaking of jobs being lost. In Nova Scotia the history showed that over 400 jobs have gone. The Premier of this Province himself has said that there are going to be jobs lost in the transition. So what do we see now? The Premier coming out, or the government at least coming out, and making statements that there will be no job losses. Definitely misleading, Mr. Speaker!

Fact number five says: Hydro remains a Newfoundland company. It actually states here, quite blatantly: A share purchase will be limited by legislation to a maximum of 20 per cent for any one individual or company. Now, Mr. Speaker, how misleading can that be when we have already seen Bill No. 2 go through this House and it gives the Public Utilities Board the right to allow an individual or a company to obtain more than 20 per cent of the shares of the new Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we deal with Motions 4 and 5 - those are first readings - then we will go on to the second reading of Bill No. 23, which is Order 17. It stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Social Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association Act," carried. (Bill No. 26)

On motion, Bill No. 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act (No. 2)," carried. (Bill No. 27)

On motion, Bill No. 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 17, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 17.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Grand Concourse Authority". (Bill No. 23).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a couple of minutes, if I could, to introduce this piece of legislation. I can't say that I can take credit for this. This has mostly been done by my predecessor, who will speak shortly for a few minutes on it, but I do want to say in introduction that I think everybody in this Province ought to be extremely proud of the Johnson family, and the Johnson Foundation which they have set up using their own dollars, Mr. Speaker, to make a contribution and give something back to the cultural life of our city and our Province. In particular I would like to note Paul Johnson, who is the president of -

MR. ROBERTS: Dr. Paul Johnson.

MR. FUREY: Dr. Paul Johnson -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: - who was just given an honourary degree by our university. It is quite a tribute to him and to his family, and he is quite a tribute to our Province. Indeed, this particular act comes into being because the Johnson family have established this foundation. The whole purpose of it is to foster, promote and enable the design, development and operation of a system of integrated walkways in and around the St. John's metropolitan area, and that includes, of course, parts of Mount Pearl and Paradise.

My friend from Waterford - Kenmount, my member of the House of Assembly who was the former Mayor of Mount Pearl, I think mentioned to me yesterday that it touches out into Paradise, parts of Mount Pearl, but in the main it is throughout the City of St. John's.

This act will allow a number of memberships to participate in the Grand Concourse Authority, various departments and agencies of government. I know Tourism and Culture will fully participate, will allow for the participation of municipalities, corporations, groups and various organizations.

In terms of funding, all members of the authority will be asked for financial contributions based upon their organization, as well as contributions in kind; things like land, labour and equipment, those kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell you as well, that Treasury Board and Cabinet just recently approved $100,000 for this corporation to be spread over a three-year period. We just issued the first cheque, in fact, last week for $35,000. It will be core funding for The Grand Concourse Authority and that will represent all government departments and agencies that will sit on this authority.

Other members of the authority are Memorial University, the Town of Paradise, the Pippy Park Commission, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Parks Canada has agreed to join it, St. John's Port Corporation, the Virginia River Conservation Society, Friends and Lobbyists of the Waterford River - I guess FLOW is the acronym there - and the Johnson Family Foundation. We anticipate that in a short while St. John's, of course, will come in and become a member. In my informal discussions with some people there, that should be around mid-June.

So the next steps are to formalize the incorporation, seek out the various approvals and permits from the city, and implement the projects this year. The projects this year will be the lake to lookout, Quidi Vidi Lake to Signal Hill, Kelly's Brook and a construction of a little rest at Quidi Vidi Lake.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is fairly straightforward. I know some other members wanted to speak about it. I think it is a very good thing for the city. I think all of us in this Assembly and people everywhere throughout the Province certainly would want to tip their hat to the Johnson family, to Dr. Paul Johnson in particular and to the Johnson Family Foundation.

So with those few words, I would introduce first reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will have a few words on this, as the critic for the hon. member. I do believe a number of my colleagues who have a more direct interest in and around metropolitan St. John's, Mount Pearl, et cetera, might wish to speak on this in some greater detail.

I reviewed the legislation, Mr. Speaker, and there is nothing untoward in it. In the early part of it, I had some concern as to whether or not we were setting up a heavy-handed bureaucratic mechanism, but I see in the latter stages, especially Section 13, there are some limits on the ability of this particular authority to really be heavy-handed in dealing with people, their property, their land, et cetera. So for the most part it is not an onerous body in terms of an impact on the metropolitan St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, I guess congratulations are in order for the Johnson Family Foundation and other private and public sector bodies, corporations, organizations, etcetera, who wish to become involved, or are already involved in this. It is obviously a matter of, I would think, some enlightened self-interest and probably some enlightened community interest. No doubt, if these matters are taken to fruition, there will some improvements in the environment and the aesthetics of the general metropolitan region, probably enhancing the tourism potential of the area and therefore adding possibly some positive economic benefits for the general metropolitan area.

Mr. Speaker, giving congratulations where it's due, I must say that this appears to be at least, one of the shining stars of the economic program of the Wells administration; an economic program, Mr. Speaker, which to say the least leaves me somewhat underwhelmed. The Wells administration, in terms of economic development, has put in place a number of structures, mechanisms - be they the recovery commission or Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador - which are essentially, Mr. Speaker, organizational matters, structural things. But, in essence, the government through its economic departments and its general economic philosophy has been content to preside over the management of decline in our economy. It has been content to preside over the cutback of many government services and programs; generally speaking, to manage an ever shrinking pie.

The government has proven itself to be brutally efficient at tearing down, totally inadequate, totally found wanting, in the matters of economic building. Rebuilding the Economic Recovery Commission, Mr. Speaker, which is supposedly one of the leading lights of the economic program of this particular administration, has turned out to be little more than a joke. We see lots of studies, lots of fancy booklets, pamphlets, etcetera, but for the most part we have to rely on the citizenship of certain individuals, certain corporations and community organizations to fill the gap, as is the case in this particular bill, Mr. Speaker.

The government, having found itself to be totally devoid of ideas, totally devoid of economic development, economic strategy, is content to pay economic strategy considerable lip service, considerable public relations time, but for the most part, is dependent on people, individuals, companies, and corporations outside its ambit to do its job for it. Those people, as I indicated earlier, are to be congratulated, Mr. Speaker, and their interest in the well being of the community is well founded.

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, my confidence in the economic program of the Wells administration has not changed; if anything it has fallen off. Generally speaking, the performance of the Wells administration, certainly in matters relating to the Department of the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, leaves one, as I indicated earlier, more than slightly underwhelmed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise and say a few words on Bill 23, "An Act to Incorporate The Grand Concourse Authority."

I'd like to compliment the Johnson family and in particular Dr. Paul Johnson on the initiative that he's put into this Grand Concourse. I remember meeting with the Johnson family and the group a few years ago when I was mayor of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove and saw the plans at that point in time for the Grand Concourse. I remember them being very imaginative and very ambitious at that point in time, Mr. Speaker, and I was certainly impressed with the plan. I thought that it would have some great potential for tourism in St. John's and around St. John's, and I certainly support that of course.

The Grand Concourse, the plan, from my memory, that would hook up a lot of the walking trails in St. John's, the trail around Quidi Vidi Lake, the Rennies Mill trail and the trails up around Signal Hill, Mr. Speaker. Actually now, out in the northeast, out in the Clovelly subdivision out in that area, the people who are designing the subdivision are putting in trails out there which could all be hooked into the Grand Concourse.

Mr. Speaker, I have some ideas myself with respect to that type of thing on the Northeast Avalon and I've been promoting this within my town and other towns down in the St. John's East Extern. When I was mayor in Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove, I was trying to get a trail up along the Outer Cove River, similar to the Rennies Mill trail, and out around Red Cliff to hook into the trails in and around St. John's. It wasn't successful at the time, but that is still on my mind and it is something I will be promoting in the future.

The town of Torbay has a very nice trail now, Mr. Speaker, around the harbour of Torbay, and that trail is along the old road that was there before Torbay Road and the road going down to Pouch Cove. It was the old road that connected the communities in Torbay, Outer Cove and Flatrock. It is right along the cliffs, and it is a beautiful walk, if anybody ever decided to get down our way and take a walk on that trail.

I think something like this could be actually promoted to cover the whole northeast Avalon and maybe the whole Avalon Peninsula, and have certain sections marked off and stops along the way for hikers. You could have chalets or you could have bed-and-breakfasts along the trail. As it now stands, people can leave the St. John's and Logy Bay boundary and go right to Pouch Cove and there is neither spot or bed-and-breakfast in the whole area, type of thing, Mr. Speaker. So all this could be a part of the grand concourse in future years, not just be restricted to the City of St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes to say that I'm very pleased with the fact that the act for the grand concourse has come forward today.

I would like to join with other members today who have congratulated the Johnson family foundation, and indeed Dr. Paul Johnson, for his initiative in dealing with this particular grand concourse scheme. I met with the Johnson family foundation many months ago when they were hoping to bring this whole project to its fruition, and I'm very pleased today to see that they have finally reached a point where the grand concourse will now become an act and a bill from this House of Assembly. The $100,000 given and committed by the government over the next three years I believe is something that the foundation did require in order to allow them to carry out the various aspects of the project that they wished to carry out.

The idea of having an integrated walkway throughout metropolitan St. John's I think is one that will allow us to not only enjoy the city and the surrounding areas to their fullest, but it will also give us the quiet areas that all cities require and need for our own piece of mind and our enjoyment. I believe that the idea behind the grand concourse will also serve as yet another tourism generator for this area. It is yet another aspect in terms of the people who come here, the things that they can enjoy, and the areas that they can enjoy throughout the city.

The Johnson family are to be congratulated for their commitment. Indeed, one of the first initiatives I understand that they will be participating in, which is a part of the grand concourse, will be a series of historic boards that will be placed throughout the region as well. My understanding is that the first historic board will be placed just inside the gates at Government House and it will give a history of that particular area. I believe there are some ten to fifteen such historic boards planned throughout the grand concourse, and I believe that these themselves will give reasons for tourists, and indeed people who live within the city and surrounding areas, to enjoy the grand concourse.

Once again I want to join with the other members of the House of Assembly today in congratulating the Johnson family, and indeed Paul Johnson, for their tenacity and their perseverance, and by all means of course, their initiative to see this come about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure I join in supporting this legislation at second reading. In doing so I would like to spend a little time talking about how important I think initiatives of this sort are. It is one of those things, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't necessarily by itself cost a lot of money right away, but what it does is provide an incentive and an initiative that will generate a tremendous amount of activity by municipalities, by individuals, by volunteer groups, by advocacy groups and by others to recognize and enhance our own urban environment and the surrounding areas to the point that we have new respect for our cities, our communities, and the values that are inherent in the space around us, a new respect, I suppose, or self-respect for the place in which we live.

This idea of incorporating the Grand Concourse Authority really caps a number of efforts by more than one individual, although Paul Johnson deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this to a coalescent force. Many individuals and groups in the last number of years in and around the City of St. John's have started what could really be called a movement in recognizing the value of our space, our rivers, our urban rivers, the kind of thing that some people would do on a Sunday afternoon just going for a walk around the hills or areas around St. John's.

We have seen the development of the Quidi Vidi-Rennies River Foundation,which has provided marked and well- dressed walkways along the banks of the Quidi Vidi River from Long Pond down to the ocean. There is tremendous interest in St. John's in that. An awful lot of people got involved in the foundation, in supporting the foundation. As Member of Parliament for St. John's East, I was quite enthusiastic in supporting, where I could, efforts of that association to get some grants to build that walkway, to provide, while they were doing it, landscaping training to individuals who wanted to work on those projects.

Some of them are now involved in the landscape business. Other organizations such as FLOW, which was mentioned by the minister, the Friends and Lobbyists of the Waterford River - another organization. I was at their annual meeting the other night and they are a very enthusiastic core group of individuals who have been active for the last number of years. Do you know there were fifty people who came to an annual meeting of a volunteer organization that is interested in the protection of a river system in the West End of St. John's, which is a very important historic and environmental resource.

Fifty people came out, Mr. Speaker, because they were interested in that project and what they were trying to do to revitalize and clean up the Waterford River system.

MR. TULK: Where is all that (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: I think it is a marvellous idea, and I say to the Member for Fogo, the fact that fifty people came to a public meeting for that is a wonderful thing. It shows how interested people are in this kind of idea and project. There is an awful lot of work that has to be done in taking on a job such as the enhancement of an urban river. There is an incredible amount of pollution, debris, junk, and even sewer outfalls still flowing into a river like the Waterford River in St. John's.

This organization has done a terrific amount of work, not only cleaning it up themselves, but getting industrial concerns such as Newfoundland Light and Power, who, over the last couple of years, have removed seventy or eighty tons of debris which had been dumped into the river or on the river bank, closing in the river. There is an industrial park through which this river flows; it flows through the municipality of Mount Pearl. This organization has been very active, for example, in encouraging cities like the City of Mount Pearl in responding to the needs of the river system in looking at their development plans for particular subdivisions, and, in fact, have been successful in helping developers realize that their plans may encroach upon the particular river, and have therefore become sensitized to that issue and have, in fact, changed their plans voluntarily and were pleased to have a group like the Friends and Lobbyists of the Waterford River to advise them of the concerns and of what kinds of consequences their plans were having on others.

We have seen this group and others advocate against, for example, the placing of the Department of National Defence facility on the bank of the Waterford River, down at the west end of Water Street. They were successful in doing that because of the 100-year flood plain, of the river. That has been put on hold, hopefully forever.

These kinds of organizations are also involved in the developing of what they are now calling, for that particular river system, a linear park. They are talking about a linear park running from the head of the harbour, along the banks of the Waterford River, through Mount Pearl. It is a new concept, one I never head of before, a linear park. This will be a park that is not going to be a big, round park. It may only be as wide as the river, and a boundary on either side, but this will be a park and the park will run through Mount Pearl, Paradise, St. John's, and be protected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister missed my comments on FLOW - as I was saying, I was at the annual meeting the other night, and even for an annual meeting of an organization like that, there were fifty people there who were all there to encourage the work of FLOW.

This linear park concept will be part of the Grand Concourse that is going on, and it has a tremendous number of effects. The minister, in his speech, indicated that FLOW would be one of the members of the authority and that the City of St. John's may be coming in some time later on. This is second reading of the bill, so we are not into the detail of it yet, but perhaps when I get his attention next I will continue on.

The minister mentions that organizations such as FLOW are doing great work, and they are, and the minister, in his opening remarks, indicated that FLOW would be one of the members of the organization, and that the City of St. John's may be coming in a little later. I would wonder, then, why the City of St. John's is named as a member in the act, but FLOW isn't. Perhaps when we get to third reading, the organizations that have already committed themselves to participating in the process could be named in the legislation, itself.

You mentioned the Virginia River Conservation Authority, the Friends and Lobbyists of the Waterford River, another. They are not named here in Section 4.2 of the act, which says who are the members named by the legislation, itself. Others can come in afterwards. I would suggest that the minister would recognize the interest and involvement of organizations such as the Quidi Vidi-Rennies River Development Foundation, which I don't see here on the list. The Friends and Lobbyists of the Waterford River are another, and the Virginia River Conservation Association, another. These organizations have been as much, if not more, of an influence on the development of this Grand Course Authority than places such as Memorial University of Newfoundland, which has just become involved in some aspects of the Grand Concourse.

I think it's a terrific piece of legislation. It is one that is not absolutely necessary to make these things happen, but it does give a terrific sense of this being a provincially recognized project. It is going to, as it develops, encourage other groups to develop not only in St. John's but in other parts of the Province.

I think the Member for St. John's East Extern has already mentioned that in his own district, in the town of Torbay, there are trail-ways that people know about but haven't really been officially recognized or designated as such. I know, in the town of Flatrock there is a great deal of interest in finding ways of protecting their river system running through Flatrock and providing for trails. There is a lot of work being done and a concern being expressed by groups outside of St. John's about rivers running through or near their towns and trying to enhance those rivers.

One of the most exciting ideas that I've heard recently is the proposal by FLOW, for example, to re-introduce a salmon run into the Waterford River. Now, that may sound like a joke to people who were forced to stop swimming in the Bowring Park swimming pool because of pollution, which happened in my lifetime. When we were kids we used to swim in the Bowring Park swimming pool, a municipal pool that was closed down because of pollution. Now, there is going to be the re-introduction of salmon into that river system and I think that is a terrific and exciting idea which is going to only increase people's awareness of our living environment around us.

I would have to say that the Grand Concourse idea, the idea of linking together the work of the various groups around St. John's who are interested in their own area or their own river, the linking together of those groups has to be credited to Paul Johnson and the Johnson Family Foundation. I said in the House here before, on the occasion of the opening of the Signal Hill lookout project that was financed directly by the Johnson Family Foundation, that it is a great credit to him to take on this work and to contribute not only his money, but his time and energy and knowledge to this project.

I've met him on a number of occasions and discussed his proposal. I've met with people who have been hired by him, architects and designers and planners, to bring together this idea and - I was going to say, sell the idea, but I don't think the idea had to be sold. It did have to be presented, and what he did was put together the elements of that show and demonstrate a design and how it could work. Once it was presented and once people had a chance to look at it, I think it sold itself. The credit for taking the initiative and presenting this to the people of St. John's and to the institutions and organizations of government, credit goes to Paul Johnson and to his family whose money was being used to create the initiative. That credit is there.

We don't have enough - as I said before in this House - philanthropists in this Province, people who have made a great deal of wealth working in this Province or having business in this Province who are willing, as a public gesture, to turn money back to this Province. We have very few. There are one or two seats or chairs, they call them, at the University. I think the Henrietta Harvey Chair of English or something. There is one or two of those, donations to a library at the University. But there are very few public buildings, for example, that we have donated by individuals who've earned great wealth from the Province and from their work here. We see the Johnson Family Foundation hopefully starting a tradition, as well, for others who are in such a position.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this particular piece of legislation, while not involving a great deal of expenditure of public funds, will bring together an idea that has a tremendous potential for having offshoots of activity and initiative by numerous groups and citizens and other organizations throughout the region. It has a great deal of potential, as well, for awakening people's awareness to the needs and the possible potential of working together to enhance the environment in which we live, to encourage this particular type of development and, to encourage the kind of activity that has been happening with the particular river conservation groups, the abatement of pollution.

One exciting project that I've heard and this is peripheral to the Grand Concourse, although the Grand Concourse will go past it, is a proposal to reopen in Victoria Park, St. John's West, the Victoria Park Cascades Falls - a river that was culverted in back in the 1970s, because I gather it was regarded as some sort of nuisance for children possibly falling into it - but opening up a falls which still exists under the ground, a series of falls known as the Cascades, in which fish actually jump this falls underneath the ground, culverted in, closed off right now. There is a proposal, over the next number of years to open up this particular culverted area, and to expose, once again, this falls and the original river bank that's still there. These kinds of ideas create a great deal of interest and enjoyment of our surroundings here in St. John's, in the city and in the surrounding areas. It makes it a more pleasant place to live and to visit. When people talk about tourism - I know, when you go to a city like Boston, you can't get away from hearing about the Constitution Walk. The Constitution Walk takes you all around Boston, goes past a number of historic buildings and sites, interpretation centres along the way, museums that you can visit, art galleries and various other things like that.

The former minister, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island mentioned that along the Grand Concourse route there are planned, as ideas, having historic - they call them historic boards, and my image was that of a number of individuals sitting around a table along the route discussing the history of a particular place, but I think he's talking about sign-ways and perhaps historic notices being set out giving a history of particular places or areas along the route. I think that's also very valuable, not only for tourists but also for young people and old people in the city of St. John's to realize the historical aspects of all of this.

I was waiting for the minister to come back. I understood he wanted to respond to the various comments before we go to the vote. I see another member wishes to speak, so with that, Mr. Speaker, I'll end my remarks and say that I fully, wholeheartedly support the legislation being brought forth. With those comments, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this piece of legislation and to also offer my congratulations to the Johnson Foundation who have taken some initiative here in putting together this particular concept and contributing significant amounts of money from the family trust towards this particular project.

It is a tremendous concept that will be of great benefit to the whole region. I suppose I speak from personal experience, having grown up on the banks of Rennies River, in fact. I recall as a young lad I caught many, many quite large trout from Rennies River. I learned to swim, just about, in Rennies River and, in fact, I'll say this, I learned to play hockey on Rennies River. It used to freeze over in those days. I suppose winters were colder than they are now; but I played many, many hours of hockey on Rennies River. So I have first hand knowledge of what it used to be like and what it should be like in the future from a cleanliness and environmental point of view, but from an aesthetic point of view I think it is being improved already.

My friend, the Member for St. John's East is gone. I wanted to point out to him that he is a little bit late in some of his comments. Oh there he is, good, he's there. He's a little bit late when he says the linear park concept is a new concept.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Right. Well, I say to him, he's missed the boat somewhere along the way. The linear park concept, as it relates to the Waterford River, was started by the Rotary Club of Waterford Valley about thirteen or fourteen years ago, a club of which I'm a chartered member, and we've put millions of dollars into the linear park concept of the Waterford Valley. So it's not a new concept. Now, that doesn't take away -

AN HON. MEMBER: The first time I heard (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: When we did it, yes. I'm sorry, I understood you said this was the first time you heard it now.

We have been involved in that for quite some time and I wanted to take this opportunity to put on the record the fact that the Rotary Club of Waterford Valley has done a tremendous job in that regard in that particular area, but has not taken a lot of credit for it, has not asked - as Rotary Clubs do not take credit for many things that they do, unfortunately. Sometimes, when we go around as I did this week to my colleagues selling tickets to do some fund-raising for some of these projects that we do, I often have to say: Here are some of the projects that we've been involved in. Because Rotary Clubs quite often don't take any credit and don't ask for credit.

I do want to take this opportunity to say a word of congratulation to my home club, and particularly, Don Osmond, who is an employee of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, and who has been the chairman of our committee responsible for all of the work that has been done on the Waterford Valley over those years. He has almost single-handedly managed the project, hired on the staff every summer. Let me say that we've created, I think up as high as fifteen or sixteen jobs for students during the summer months. In fact, we can document that. We have slide shows from every year showing the work that was done before and after. We could, if members were interested, put together quite a detailed presentation. I think you would be extremely impressed at the work that was accomplished using largely make-work funds, as we refer to them, student employment programs. Whatever was available that we were able to access, we accessed, and used money extremely well. It is a very worthwhile purpose for that type of thing and created jobs and it has been of significant benefit.

So there has been a major cleanup. It is not just the Rotary Club of Waterford Valley - let me be quick to add that the City of Mount Pearl, the City of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and many private supporters, construction companies and so forth, have donated goods or services to the project over the years. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous project.

Tied in with that, I wanted to point out, is that in the city of Mount Pearl, itself, we already have a tremendous linear park network throughout the whole city, built and developed as part of the expansion area of Mount Pearl, including waterways. Every waterway within the city has been retained, it has been upgraded, beautified, and is part of a park system that runs throughout, including a system of trailways, so that in the newer area of Mount Pearl, you can literally walk to any shopping centre or any school without crossing any highway whatsoever. All of the major collector arterial roads have pedestrian underpasses constructed. I think there are probably perhaps a dozen in Mount Pearl already constructed - quite good pedestrian underpasses so that students going to school or going to a play area or shopping area do not have to cross the highways. That is all part of the linear park concept.

This is the kind of thing that will be tied in with the Grand Concourse. At the moment, the City of Mount Pearl is not part of this authority. I'm told that the main reason the City opted out at the moment is that all of their resources are being put into the Waterford Valley project and that they do not at this time want to commit energy or funds into the Grand Concourse concept. But no doubt they will and they must and they should be part of it all in due course.

I am pleased to see that this concept is being put in place and that renewed emphasis will be put on it. I should have mentioned, as well, in talking about the Waterford Valley, that the Friends and Lobbyists of the Waterford Valley have done tremendous work as well. Again, they are latecomers as it relates to Rotary, but they have given that added dimension of bringing in other volunteers with a much broader scope, and being able to take on a much larger project, and have perhaps accessed more funding, and speed up the work that is being done.

I'm pleased to see that it is a separate authority. I have to say - not to take away whatsoever from this overall concept, but I have to say I am pleased that it is not a City of St. John's authority, particularly in view of the last two or three days when I'm hearing all of these concepts now of city employees having to live in the city of St. John's - which doesn't affect me whatsoever, but I suspect, from a human rights point of view, some of those employees may want to challenge that.

I am concerned, let me say, about the new local preference concepts coming into the city of St. John's. I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if he were listening. If somebody could wake up the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs down there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: He is not listening. Mr. Speaker, can I get the attention of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs? I'm trying to get - now, the minister is finally free and he is paying attention. I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I just spoke about the employment concept, or requirements in the city of St. John's, where employees are now being told they have to live in the city of St. John's, which I have some problem with, and I think maybe some of the employees will question, from a human rights points of view, but I also have real questions as it relates to the local preference policy that the City is now looking at, where they are providing a 5 per cent preference.

I ask the minister: Has he checked with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who is responsible for the Public Tender Act, whether or not municipalities have the right and authority to come in with local preference.

MR. EFFORD: They don't now.

MR. WINDSOR: They do not is right, and I thank the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for confirming what I knew. I thank him for confirming that.

Would the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs now tell me, if he has not, will he very soon, advise the City of St. John's that they do not have the authority to adopt such a by-law that is totally discriminatory, and will the City of St. John's wake up and find out that the City of St. John's, whether they like it or not, depends for its economic viability on the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Will they stop this nonsense of wanting to put toll gates at the entrance to the city of St. John's?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Will they stop being so narrow-minded, parochial, and childish, and get on with the business of running the city, and stop being so silly about these sorts of concepts - 5 per cent local preference. Do they not realize that residents of Mount Pearl, and the residents of the rest of the Province, spend their money in St. John's? Do they not want us to come into the Village Shopping Centre, and the Avalon Mall, and the O'Leary Avenue Industrial Park, and Water Street? Do they not want Confederation Building and Memorial University and thousands of government offices, in the City of St. John's? If they don't want us, we will move them away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I have never heard of anything so foolish as the attitude of the City of St. John's, so I ask the minister: Will he please advise the City that they do not legally have the right to pass such a local preference policy, and will they please put it to bed and get on with the business of running the city, which is what they were elected to do?

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, let me once again congratulate the Johnson family, and all of the groups and organizations that are now involved with this concept, or that will be involved with the concept, that are not yet part of it. I recommend it. I recommend it highly, and they are all to be congratulated for the role they are playing.

Thank you.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising to congratulate the government, the minister, Paul Johnson, and the other people responsible for devising the Grand Concourse proposal.

Before I say anything further, if I might, on that, I would like also to say, in response to what the Member for Mount Pearl has said, that I don't have a concern about people from Mount Pearl working in the city of St. John's. In fact, my concern is that they don't live in the city of St. John's. I would like to see them all living in the city of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: And see them making an appropriate contribution to the cost of running the city of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: As the member has said, the St. John's region does pretty well by this Province, but there are many individuals in the St. John's region who don't do pretty well, who do not share in the fishery adjustment programs, who do not get a proper - the City doesn't get a proper share or a proper contribution from the other levels of government in the cost of the infrastructure programs that are being announced now.

The residents of St. John's pay much higher municipal taxes than the residents of Mount Pearl and other surrounding communities, and that is very onerous for particular individuals in our city, and if the Member for Mount Pearl wants to talk about people living off surrounding communities, I suggest that the Member for Mount Pearl is an expert in that area, because nobody lives off surrounding communities more than the community of Mount Pearl does.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, what garbage!

MR. NOEL: It is not garbage. You would have no Donovans Industrial Park if it wasn't for the surrounding communities that make it viable, but who don't get a share in the revenues that it generates.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't mean to get into discussing municipal affairs in responding to this bill.

Paul Johnson is a man I had an opportunity to begin working with back in the 1970s, when I was the President of the Downtown Development Corporation and he was the President of I think it was the Newfoundland Heritage Foundation, and we got involved in trying to initiate some activities to develop downtown St. John's. And I would say that Mr. Johnson and many of the people who are involved in that organization contributed a great deal of their own time and effort to help achieve what it has achieved over the past decade or fifteen years.

I find a particular involvement with the Grand Concourse in an indirect kind of way through my involvement with the Virginia River Conservation Society, which I had the opportunity to participate in helping set up several years ago. Members might know that the Virginia River is part of the Grand Concourse which is being established to provide a park-like setting around the whole city and eventually, if it reaches its objectives, people will be able to work around the whole city through the Grand Concourse. So I think it is a great attraction for our city, for residents, for tourists and visitors alike.

The people with whom I have been most involved are the people involved with the Virginia River Conservation Society and, in particular, Mr. Ken Hannaford and Ms. Cindy Murray, who give practically all of their time raising money and doing things to help develop the Virginia River; and incidentally, we have some problems in the Virginia River that I am in the process of discussing with our Minister of Environment and Lands and our Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

We have a tremendous environmental problem down off the Logy Bay Road and in the Rutledge Crescent area and, whatever the source of the problem, there is a lot of unacceptable material being emptied into the Virginia River and destroying a lot of the work of the people who are giving so much. Not only the people, but the governments as well, both levels of government, are contributing funding to the enhancement of the Virginia River, but unfortunately, the river is being polluted by certain problems down in that area which I hope the Minister of Environment and Lands and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will endeavour to do more about in the near future.

I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that the Virginia River Conservation Society will be holding its annual meeting on June 7, and I would recommend that any members who are available take it in; it will be down at the Foran Room in City Hall.

I am glad to see that while the members of the Virginia River Conservation Society and FLOW and the Quidi Vidi-Rennies River Development Foundation are not included directly in the formation of the Grand Concourse Authority. There is provision made for their inclusion at a later stage, I think, in section 3 of clause 4 of the bill, and I hope that we see a number of these organizations given an opportunity to play a meaningful role in the organization; so, Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate all of the people involved, and there have been many hundreds of people involved in all of these organizations, who have done so much for so many years to help accomplish this and I am glad to see that government has responded to their efforts.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I just wanted to have a couple of comments on this bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Grand Concourse Authority", and I will keep my comments relatively brief because I do understand that there are other items on the Orders of the Day that we have planned to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to compliment the Johnson family; I have been familiar with this proposal for the last several years and have attended many meetings where this matter was discussed and where the proposals were developed. One of the things that we all give recognition to in the last few years is the significant development in the parkways, a growing consciousness of the need to enhance the environment, our commitment to the Green Plan, and, Mr. Speaker, what we see here is citizen initiative. I should point out to all hon. members, as other members have, that this particular proposal was developed by the private sector. It is a significant proposal that is developed to permit all residents of the St. John's region to be able to show their voluntarism, to be able to show their commitment to the environment. It permits the corporate sector to get involved. It permits the private sector to be involved in funding. Also, it focuses attention.

Whether it is through FLOW and the Waterford River, whether it is through the developments of the shoreline along the Quidi Vidi area, or whether it is a commitment to the railway lands that are in this region, whatever we have, it shows that people are now aware of and want cities and other municipalities to develop their open spaces and to show commitment to the protection of them.

One of the things that we have seen in the last few years is that there is a growing level of awareness. Citizens want to be able to see part of nature from their own backyards. As my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl has pointed out, in Mount Pearl there is a grand variety of walkways. In fact, there is about thirty-six kilometres of paved walkway. That would make it the greatest, I suppose, number or the greatest commitment to walkways in the whole Province.

I should point out, as well, that a study that was done some time ago, done when I was the mayor of Mount Pearl, asked people: What is the most significant thing that makes you feel part of your municipality? The response came back. Eighty-eight per cent of the people identified recreation, commitment to recreation, and lifestyle. What was surprising to all of us who were sitting on council at that time was that so many people were able to identify recreation and beautification as the reasons why they wanted to live in their particular municipality.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the Johnson family, I want to give them every encouragement to continue, and I want, as well, to give encouragement to all the volunteers who have been involved in this project and who will be involved in the years to come.

I also say to the minister, as I said to him yesterday, that this kind of development tells us all that we have to do all we can to protect the railway bed right across this Province. As I said yesterday to the minister in our conversation, I would like for the minister to make a renewed commitment in his concluding remarks that the railway bed across this Province will continue to be forever a recreational piece of land. The concepts that are in the Grand Concourse for the St. John's region, we can have that extended and have a Grand Concourse right across the Province. We can have the kind of commitment from the government that we will not permit developers or the citizens to encroach on the railway land.

I have to say, as well, that I was very disturbed some time ago when I found out that we had people going on the railway land and picking up the crushed stone. We had people who were digging it up and putting, I suppose you would call it, water lines or whatever across it, not restoring it properly. There was one case, I was told, of where we had dump trucks using the railway bed for a roadway. And while that might be the shortest route to get from point A to point B, if we let that happen as a Province, then we are going to destroy a tremendous asset that this Province has. As a person who has promoted recreation for many, many years - I don't profess to be an athlete, not at all, but I have been a member of the Canadian Parks and Recreation for more than twenty years, and I say to hon. members that whatever we can do to make sure that the railway bed in this Province is protected from downtown St. John's at the harbour front right to Port aux Basques, then we have to make sure that it is. We have to treat aggressively any persons, or groups of persons, corporations, or municipalities, that want to do anything to destroy the integrity of the railway bed of this Province. Because while the Grand Concourse is great for St. John's, I would like to see the concept of the Grand Concourse put right across this Province from St. John's to Port aux Basques.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I want to simply say that this is a noble concept and to compliment the Johnson family. They have shown the leadership, and I trust that the City of St. John's will integrate this concept into their municipal master plan, thereby giving greater protection to make sure it becomes an integrated part of the entire municipal recreation master plan for the city of St. John's which will be in part, then, part of the City of St. John's Municipal Plan.

Mr. Speaker, with these words, I congratulate the minister and all the work he has done to make this development possible.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I thank all hon. members who spoke in this debate for their kind words about the Johnson family and the Johnson Foundation. I think the hon. the Member for St. John's East had a question briefly about section 4, subsection (2) but I have had an opportunity to discuss it with him privately and he seems satisfied.

I hear my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl speak about this local preference tax and I can only concur with his comments. Everywhere around the world they were stripping down barriers, taking down preferences and opening up the markets for free and open movement. It seems illogical to go the other way, and I can only concur with his very intelligent remarks in that regard.

My friend, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount and my member in the House of Assembly made some very good points. I should say to him though that Cabinet has moved in a very vigorous way to protect the integrity of the rail bed from St. John's all the way through to Port aux Basques. I keep hearing these stories on CBC, a fellow Goulding from the West Coast talking about people taking bits and pieces and abusing the site. What is his name?

AN HON. MEMBER: Otto.

MR. FUREY: Yes, Otto Goulding, who was with the rural development movement, I believe.

I don't know what the problem is because Cabinet has moved. We have put in place an order that nobody is to remove, tamper, be negligent with, or touch, the entire rail bed. I call upon him and others, if they see people doing that, to report it to the authorities immediately.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: The only people who should be there are those who have authority, and have been given authority, by the Government of the Province. We want to protect the integrity of that linear park from St. John's to Port aux Basques. We can only deal with abuse if people tell us about abuse, and if people tell me about abuse, I assure you, we will move in swiftly and forcefully to stop it, because we see the great economic and tourism potential of this linear park.

However, having said that,Cabinet has to wrestle with some very complex issues, least of which is the capital cost to improve that linear park across the Province. Some approximations are anywhere from $30 to $40 million. Well, where do we get that money to make those improvements? Secondly, the maintenance cost of maintaining the property right across that stretch of land is somewhere between $4 and $8 million, depending upon whose figures you deal with.

The third very complex issue is one of liability. What happens if someone is hurt on it? Who is responsible if there is a fatality or an accident? So it is not as easy as some people almost gleefully, simplisticly put forward on these radio press releases every now and then. What is the Province doing? Why aren't they protecting it? Well, the fact of the matter is, it is a protected area. It has been sanctioned so by Cabinet and we are going to deal with this whole plethora of very complex issues in the next number of days.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fabulous piece of legislation. I commend the Johnson family, Dr. Paul Johnson, in particular, and I thank members from all parties, on all sides for their support for this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On motion, a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Grand Concourse Authority," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 23)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we go on to Motion 1? My understanding is that there will be Late Show questions submitted. If Your Honour has them perhaps we could read them now, if not you have to do it at 4:00 p.m. The House will adjourn - I won't be here, I have to attend a meeting, but my friend, the Minister of Finance will be here, and my understanding is, when the Late Show concludes, we will meet tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

Tempus fugit, I would say to hon. members, and all of us should govern ourselves accordingly. If we're going to get out of here this side of Regatta Day we should govern ourselves with appropriate discussion, I would say.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate and the questions for the Late Show. It's 3:55 p.m. I guess there'll be no changes now, acting House Leader.

The first question is, I'm not satisfied with the response to my question of the Minister of Health regarding the hospital bed closures and the community health services, and that's from the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

I'm not satisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs concerning the processing of an application under Urban and Rural Planning Act for development at 130 Lemarchant Road; that's from the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

Mr. Speaker, I'm dissatisfied with the response to my question to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; and that's from the hon. the Member for Green Bay.

We're on Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to rise to say a few words now on the Budget. It took a little while to get back to it but I'm glad we could because there's a few things I'd like to bring up, especially concerning my district. There's quite a few things, actually, but I'll take a few minutes, anyway, to bring a few of those to the floor here today.

Mr. Speaker, the first item I'd like to speak about - and it's in relation to my district but it's one that's been popping up lately and it's a very serious one, especially as it relates to my district - is in health care, Mr. Speaker. One of the strongest influences, I guess, in my deciding to enter politics, was this very issue, the issue of health care in my district. Mr. Speaker, I say that it was one of the things that influenced me in particular - my impression of politics - to even consider it when the issue of health care in my district came up for the first time.

I returned to Baie Verte after leaving there for ten years. I was born there, Mr. Speaker, in a hospital in Baie Verte, in 1959. It makes me thirty-four years old. And I also have twelve other brothers and sisters who were born there. Now, the funny thing about it, here it was just four short years ago - now, of course, I'm married with my own two children, ages two and five years.

After moving back to Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker, with a growing town that boomed with the mining industry and so on there, they had a beautiful, modern hospital. And I moved back to Baie Verte to find that when it came time for my children to be born, I had to take a trip to Grand Falls, on two occasions, stay in a hotel as my children were being born. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite sincere and serious when I talk about this issue because it's something that struck me very funny. In a population of approximately 15,000 people, two hours away from Grand Falls, two hours away from Corner Brook - basically Baie Verte is in the middle geographically of Grand Falls and Corner Brook - and, of course, I found it very strange that I would have to go to Grand Falls with my wife and have my children born there while I sat in a hotel room that night. I started to think about it, Mr. Speaker; I said, imagine, in 1959, a family of fifteen children all born in Baie Verte back in the 1950s, as late as 1959 into the 1960s, and here I am in 1992 and all I can think about is, here I am, driving to Grand Falls to have a child born - in 1992.

MR. TULK: What's wrong with that?

MR. SHELLEY: What's wrong with that? the Member for Fogo asks. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Fogo should take this seriously. Because it is something I take very seriously, I say to the Member for Fogo, and it is sickening. No other statement than that. I will say it inside the House, (inaudible) the politics of it or not. It really bothers me that somebody in this House can make a joke about health care. I really find it bad that anybody in this hon. House - I don't think the Minister of Social Services takes it as a joke.

I'm being very serious when I say there is something wrong when I sat in Grand Falls that night when my first child was born and said: I was born in Baie Verte in 1959. The place has since then grown. We've become more modern. And now I have to drive two hours and stay in a hotel while my children were being born.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I'm very serious about it.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: You should have been in there with your wife.

MR. SHELLEY: I was with my wife.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: You should have been in the hospital with her.

MR. SHELLEY: I was in the hospital with my wife, I say to the hon. the Member for St. John's North. I'm telling you with all sincerity and seriousness, I say to the Member for Fogo, with no political stripe whatsoever -

MR. TULK: Oh no, not with you.

MR. SHELLEY: On this issue, I say. I don't care what the hon. member thinks.

MR. TULK: You never opened your face in your life but you were playing politics.

MR. SHELLEY: Obviously, the Member for Fogo -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Something like the Member for Fogo. Obviously, the Member for Fogo doesn't know me very well, and to be able to say that, I don't know. He has only known me for a couple of months in the House of Assembly. We don't go back in the dog's age of the Liberal Party like the Member for Fogo.

Anyway, to get to the point that is important, Mr. Speaker, and I say it with all honest and sincerity, in 1992, with the age of technology and everything else, for somebody on the Baie Verte Peninsula - that community boomed with the mining industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, I see, that is nice. Anyway, the point I am making, Mr. Speaker - and I don't know if anybody on either side of the House could argue it, when this day and age if you have to drive for two hours - and I will say to other hon. members, I was living in the Baie Verte area. There are people in La Scie - I talked to - go talk the realities of it, I'm not making this up. A lady in La Scie just after I got elected decided to drive in the winter, in January.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, it shouldn't be! I'm telling you my case. If you want to speak about yours you can get up. I talked to a lady in La Scie -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I'm trying to make a point if the people on the opposite side weren't so ignorant about it. A woman from La Scie had told me: You know, it is pretty ridiculous. Here I am, it is the month of January, storms and whatever, and I'm pregnant. Her husband had gone to work in Hope Brook. She was by herself and had to drive to Grand Falls, because the doctor said she should go in a few weeks early, just in case, because there were some problems. She had to leave and drive by herself to Grand Falls - three hours from La Scie, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Social Services, I'm sure, can understand it, he knows I'm being sincere about this. She said, `I drove for three hours over a bad road, by the way - and I've talked (inaudible) the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation from La Scie.' But to drive over La Scie, up to Baie Verte, then two more hours to get into Grand Falls to bear a baby in 1993, 1992. You tell me that there is something sensible about that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Eagle River should be supporting anybody who gets up and speaks on this.

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

MR. SHELLEY: As usual, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation missed the first part of the conversation so I would like to ask him to at least ask somebody what has been talked about before he butts in and talks on it.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Eagle River, any time that he would stand up and support, or talk about something, I would support him, too - not him, but the people of Labrador, because I know about Labrador, too - I've lived there. And all I'm saying to hon. members, very seriously -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) Labrador City (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members not to interject.

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know why the hon. members are so testy. I'm not using a partisan - I'm just giving you a situation that is a reality in my part of the Province. I speak on behalf of my constituents. I'm telling you a fact, a story, that goes on day after day out there. There are 15,000 people there, and we have a lady who has to drive for three hours to have a child born. Simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go away with you!

MR. SHELLEY: What do you mean, `Go away with me'? The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is - am I making a story up here, am I fabricating, like the Premier goes on?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making, I would say to hon. members opposite, if you stood up to complain - because what I am doing is complaining, yes. I have no problem doing that. Any member - the Member for Fortune - Hermitage has some problems with some communities that are isolated from hospitals down there, or the Member for Eagle River, as I just said. I am not sure about the Member for Terra Nova. She has some communities that are far from the hospital, like she said. I support anybody with that complaint.

What I am saying, very simply, is that health care in this Province - the minister keeps getting up and saying it is adequate health care. What a ridiculous statement! The bottom line is, in 1959 a baby could be born in the Baie Verte area. In 1993, we have to drive for two hours to have a child born.

I have a two-year-old child, and she has to have a tonsillectomy, the most simple operation. I can't go up to the hospital - we have a hospital there, a so-called hospital - and let my child go in there and be taken care of, I have to drive to Corner Brook or Grand Falls. What a ridiculous situation!

AN HON. MEMBER: How far is that from your home, now?

MR. SHELLEY: A two-hour drive, three hours from La Scie. Now, it would be great if the roads were paved perfect, and it would be great if there were no snowstorms. Of course, now, we have about the same chance of having perfect pavement as we have of getting no snowstorms in February.

Mr. Speaker, that is just a point that I wanted to make to the House, and I would support any other hon. member across who is in a similar situation. Now, I know there is not a one-shot solution to it all. We are realistic about that, but the point is that we should all support better health care in the Province - I hope we do - and that we should be pursuing better methods of health care.

That is the only point I wanted to make today, except that I was interjected by ignorance, as far as I am concerned, on the other side of the House, by people who are in the same situation. So I say to the Minister of Health here today, we deserve better health care in my district, and if other people have the same situation in their districts, I advise you to stand in this House and speak for your people and say you deserve adequate health care. That is all I am saying. It is very simple.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Eagle River (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If the Member for Eagle River doesn't believe it, then he shouldn't stand and say - unless he is going to stand and say he has great health care there, no problems. When I have a concern in my district, I don't mind standing and saying it in this House. That is what I was elected for, and that is exactly what I am doing here today.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of other things that I want to mention before I get into the forestry, mining and fishery sections. Just to give an example, I already said it once, but I thought I should bring it up again and update the House on what is happening there, and I say it as an example of communities in this Province that are going through a transition stage, I say. A lot of communities are going through a transition stage because of the crisis we now have in the fishery, and it is happening all over the Province, so I just want to bear notice today to one community in my district that has really exemplified the true spirit of being positive and going on, the true spirit of putting their problems aside for a minute and saying: Let's get on with our lives. Let's try to be positive. Let's see what we can do for ourselves. I have heard other government members say many times: Let's see what we can do for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, there is no better example that I can think of right now than the community of Harbour Deep. I was there again recently, and they have elected a new council there, and a new mayor, Debbie Robson, and her new council. They are a very energetic young group who have a great attitude, an attitude that could be an example for any municipality in this Province.

They suggest we have to face the fact that there is a fisheries crisis, and they suggest we have to look at alternatives. Now, I sat with those people, and I will tell you, I was encouraged, and I was glad to be their member. They confided in me with their problems. They talked about some solutions, instead of sitting back, being negative all the time. There is a saying that any man who says he never had a chance never took a chance. Well, you have to take some chances, and the people I talked to in Harbour Deep - as we all know, approximately a year ago, the question of resettlement came up. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that was a hard thing for the people in that community. The community was torn on it. They were talking about that out of desperation, facing a situation that they could have to leave where they grew up and were proud to belong.

It is only a small, isolated community, but the truth is the people had made a very good living for themselves in that community. Anybody who has visited that area - the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was there, I know, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has been there on occasion, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful community with great potential for tourism, a pristine look, and the environment over there is just bar none. I would suggest that any of the members would want to visit, during the summer months especially. It is a beautiful area for salmon fishing over there. So the tourism potential is very good.

Mr. Speaker, the people in that community, after going through a very trying experience when the resettlement issue first appeared, are at the stage today, I am glad to say that, after talking with the new council over there, where they are in a mode of: Well, let's see what we can do for ourselves. They are saying: Let's look at alternatives and see what we can do to survive. I mean, they say to themselves: What's the good of us leaving here and going to Grand Falls or Corner Brook or St. John's? What are they doing, Mr. Speaker? All they are doing is transplanting the problem. They are taking the problem from Harbour Deep and putting it somewhere else. So the people at Harbour Deep are saying: Yes, let's be positive. They are saying: Let's look to see what we can do for ourselves here.

So, Mr. Speaker, very simply the analogy that they use was: You know, for years we stood on this wharf and looked out at the ocean for our living. Well, very simply, Mr. Speaker, they have to turn around now and look inland.

Now these are some of the potentials that they see. We discussed, a couple of things, but one of the things they discussed was the mining potential there, and there are some mineral developments that are possible over there. Then they looked at the tourism. I mean, just look around the place and you can see the tourism potential is great there.

The last one, the one that we are now pursuing heavily, Mr. Speaker, is the forest potential over there. In the Harbour Deep area there is a timber stand called the Moody Block, which, I think it was in 1934 by a Dr. Moody, was sold to Abitibi-Price. Now, Mr. Speaker, they say it is one of the best timber stands left in this Province, and since then Abitibi has not used that timber stand whatsoever, for various reasons.

So, Mr. Speaker, the first thing we started to pursue since that meeting - and I will say that I have been speaking with the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture on it quite a few times. We talked about Abitibi reverting that land to the Crown, and that would be the first step in starting to develop that forest industry. Now there are going to be obstacles along the way. The minister knows and I know that there is the environment, unions, the company itself and everything else, but, Mr. Speaker, it has to start somewhere.

So our first step is to start the procedure at least, and from talking to the minister, I can say that at least the procedure has started. He has talked to Abitibi with a view to looking at reverting the land to the Crown. So it has started anyway and we will see how long the procedure takes and where it goes from there. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that it has started.

The main point is that this little community of 200 people didn't just throw up their hands and give up and sit back and wait for government hand outs. They said: What can we do for ourselves? That's why this council in Harbour Deep, Mr. Speaker, has to be commended. They are an example for any municipality in this Province. They didn't throw up their hands and say: Give us hand outs and give us make-work projects. They said: What can we do that will be viable and long-standing, something whereby we can survive and continue to live here?

Mr. Speaker, we are going to pursue that with that council. We are going to keep up correspondence with the minister and Abitibi, and hopefully as soon as possible that land will be reverted, and then we will start the second phase which is to look at what can happen after the land has reverted to Crown, the potential for sawmills or lumber mills or whatever, Mr. Speaker. But at least the potential is there, and because the resource is there the potential is there. So hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will hear something about that in the very near future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to make a few comments before I go into the forestry, mining and fishery, about the infrastructure announcements yesterday. All over the Province, of course, whenever you pump in that much money, there are people who are going to be satisfied and people who are dissatisfied. I mean that's a given, that's the reality of it. You can't please everybody all the time, I realize that. It was a step in the right direction I say to the minister - the MP for our area is the Minister Tobin. It is a step in the right direction.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there have to be questions. I suppose there are always questions, especially when you get calls from the municipalities who didn't get anything, and I am sure all hon. members here in the House today got their calls. I certainly had a call from every single community that had applied for something and didn't get it. Mr. Speaker, what is the answer they give?

I would just like to make a couple of comments on what the municipalities who didn't get it are saying. I am sure a lot of members here can relate to calls I had last night and this morning.

I mean, very simply, they look around and they wonder where the priority is. That is the first one that was brought to me, Mr. Speaker. Maybe some hon. members will speak after and give us some examples they have.

For example, in the riding of Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte, the minister Tobin's riding, people question - and I'm sure the minister himself will get the calls on it - question the $21 million for the civic centre in Corner Brook. I know, Mr. Speaker, through my time in being involved with recreation and sport, that it is a great thing for the City of Corner Brook and it is something that hopefully will be utilized, and there will be good things come from this civic centre.

Mr. Speaker, you can't help but listen to people, listen to the municipality calls that say - for example, the community of Brent's Cove. They've been waiting. They have raw sewage coming to the surface, flowing through people's gardens right now. That is a reality. I had the town clerk call me to say that: The boil order is still in the school there. It has been for, I can't remember if it is two or three years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. SHELLEY: The boil order for water. Kids have to bring their own water to school. They can't use the fountains in the school, and they have raw sewage on top of ground.

In Woodstock, Mr. Speaker - something that I'm going to bring up with the Minister of Environment and Lands later on, is that down in Woodstock there is a salmon river there, a very good salmon river, a beautiful river. The raw sewage is now flowing directly into that salmon river. It is something that is very serious. These people were looking for improvements to their water and sewer.

Then you can go on again to the community of Pacquet, the same thing, sewage on the surface land and in people's gardens. Coachman's Cove, Fleur de Lys: These communities were looking for what they refer to as the bare necessities, which is water and sewer; people who don't have water coming into their homes, lines freezing on top of the ground and so on, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure there are a lot of hon. members who have the same situations in a lot of communities.

So, Mr. Speaker, you can't really argue with people who call in and say to you: Yes, the civic centre is a great thing, $21 million, but, my God, water and sewer, a necessity, should be given a very high priority. You can't blame people, especially when they call again to talk about road work in their area, where you have gravel roads that are down to the bare rock. There hasn't been any new surface, not just pavement but extra turf, on top so that the road is in better condition.

Mr. Speaker, there are some communities in my district, when I talk about road work. For example, the communities of Harbour Round, Brent's Cove and Shoe Cove, with six kilometres of pavement those three communities could be taken care of. That is not a lot to ask for. Right now it really doesn't make economic sense. Either you have graders - I have called the Transportation depot in my district maybe ten times in the last two weeks. With the time of the year, I guess, the wetness and everything else, I have to call them continuously.

Mr. Speaker, that costs a lot of money, for those graders and the trucks to go back and forth, to keep doing this road, trying to keep it in some kind of condition where it is at least passable. There came times in Middle Arm when the road wasn't even passable. It was deplorable. It makes economic sense, after year after year of doing this six or seven kilometres of road to Brent's Cove, Shoe Cove and Harbour Round, to pave it. It makes sense.

Then you have a road, seventeen kilometres, that goes into Nippers Harbour. That should be at least upgraded. It has been graded over and over so much now it is down to boulders and rocks. There is nothing on top of it. Even if not the pavement, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, then at least a surface on it, something at least.

MR. EFFORD: What do you want? You are not getting it, whatever it is.

MR. SHELLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, what an answer from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation! I hope we don't have to put this in Hansard, do we, Mr. Speaker?

So the road work, water and sewer: I guess the point behind it all is that water and sewer and roads are a basic necessity of people around this Province and they have to question it, Mr. Speaker, and they are questioning it. I say to the ministers, that that is what they are questioning: Where are the priorities? You know, water and sewer and road work, as opposed to civic centres. It begs the question.

I really hope that if there is more money coming in the near future, and then some more again next year, then I would ask minister both provincially and federally to look down through the list and talk to each community; talk to them. If both ministers, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries, our federal minister, Mr. Tobin - they were talking about how they consulted with all the municipalities and everything else. That is good, I'm glad to hear that. If that is true, Mr. Speaker, then each community should be asked: What is the situation with your water and sewer? Is there raw sewage? Is it going into rivers? Is it going through people's gardens? How many houses do you have that don't have running water, in the winter that freeze and cracks? Ask those questions, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear to me that these are the people who should be given the priority for any influx of dollars that come into this Province. They should be given priority, there's no doubt about it. When you compare somebody who has raw sewage flowing up through their back garden and then you think about a civic centre, wherever it may be, then, Mr. Speaker, the priorities should be reconsidered, I say to the ministers. That's what I say to them, Mr. Speaker, give consideration to the priority as to where the money should go. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that it should go to these municipalities that need the basics of water and sewer, and paving or upgrading of the roads.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another road I'll mention now is the Baie Verte Highway. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows, and so does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, our member in the Baie Verte area, our member in parliament, that the Baie Verte Highway is in a deplorable state. That road serves twenty-two communities and has great potential for tourism and other things. The thing that grabs you most, as soon as you turn off to go down to Baie Verte, is the condition of the road. Besides the surface of the road and the actual pavement on the road, Mr. Speaker, before I even talk about that to the minister here today - if he's been down there and he's supposed to be there. He's told me twice that he will be down but he hasn't come yet, but maybe he will come this summer.

Mr. Speaker, it's like going through a tunnel of trees. If anybody knows the moose hunting situation on the Baie Verte Peninsula, there's a heavy moose population on the Baie Verte Peninsula, and the brush is next to the pavement on both sides going down the road. Mr. Speaker, as I say, besides the actual pavement, the actual surface, consideration has to be given to the danger aspect that I talked about with this particular road, the danger of a moose just being able to just walk onto the Baie Verte Highway, at a seconds notice. I can tell you, in the time that I have travelled up and down that road, I've had the occasion of coming very close to hitting moose, because the brush is, as I said, like looking through a tunnel of trees going down that highway.

Mr. Speaker, I know that that road is under the trunks regional development; it's on that list. It's been on it since 1989, Mr. Speaker, on that list with the federal program that was released under the Road for Rails deal. The Baie Verte Highway is on that list, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That road is on that list, is that right?

MR. EFFORD: Which road?

MR. SHELLEY: The Baie Verte Highway. On the regional trunk -

MR. EFFORD: Are you a PC or a Liberal?

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation it should not matter if I'm a PC or a Liberal. The people in that district are people of this Province and the minister has an obligation to everybody in this Province to treat them fairly, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) seventeen years.

MR. SHELLEY: Now they go on about the seventeen years again. Seventeen years of this, seventeen years of that. I was twelve years old, Mr. Speaker, I don't really care what happened seventeen years ago.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that road is on that list, the Baie Verte Highway. I hope, if they have some sense, Mr. Speaker, that they will take a good look at that road, if the minister lives up to his obligation, that highway, the Baie Verte Highway, that serves twenty-two communities, 12,000 people, and give us some high consideration, because I tell you one thing, I'll be in close contact with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, our MP, Mr. Tobin, and I hope that he will consider that as a high priority for next year, Mr. Speaker.

That road is a necessity to that peninsula, in the development of tourism, development of mining, development of forestry and so on, Mr. Speaker. So I hope that both the provincial minister and the federal minister will consider that highway for next summer. I know they missed out on it this year, Mr. Speaker.

Now I have to take two minutes, because that's all I got left, to mention forestry. Hopefully I'll get some other time later to speak on a couple of more things. Forestry, Mr. Speaker, is, of course, the portfolio that I'm responsible for as a critic. Mr. Speaker, I'll just say briefly again, I guess in general - and I've talked about it with the Minister of Forestry many, many times. I'm not saying this but loggers are saying it.

Mr. Speaker, all I can think about is how the fishermen for so many years told us about the fishery: For god's sake watch what's happening. There's something happening in the fishery that's looking bad. But we, as politicians here in the Province, PC, Liberal or whatever, in Ottawa the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, listen, we have experts up in Ottawa who will handle that. Don't worry about the fishery. You can keep on fishing and let us handle the expertise; let us be the scientists -we know what is happening. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, we all know what happened. I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, well, let's learn from that mistake, Mr. Speaker.

People involved in forestry are now saying, we had better get control of what is happening in forestry or we are going to be in trouble. You can refer to the analogy I use time and time again of the fishery to the forestry. Mr. Speaker, the same thing could very well happen, and maybe is happening as we speak, with forestry in this Province. We have to have tighter control, increased silviculture, and better management of the forest resources.

Mr. Speaker, I spend quite a bit of time in the woods whenever I can, in winter and summer, trouting, skidooing, and I am sure any hon. member in this House can concur with me that they see the same thing. Time after time you go in and see the forest devastated. It looks as if it went through war time, and that is continuing to happen day after day. What we have to start doing is refine our management and increase our silviculture. Without talking to our scientists or anybody else it is a simple mathematic. If there is not a tree planted for every one that is cut, sooner or later they are going to be all gone. It is as simple as that. I do not need a scientist up in Ottawa to tell me that.

We only have so many trees. Trees are planted and they grow in one place. Now, if that one tree is cut and there is not another one planted to replace the one cut, sooner or later they are gone. It is as simple as that. If we were managing it right and silviculture were being done properly, we would be planting more trees as they are cut.

Then we have to look at the impact of the harvesters. We have to look at it again and look at it very seriously. Using the analogy of the fishery again, the big draggers that we see pull up the fish, the same thing with the harvesters. They are destroying the land they work on. The Minister of Environment and Lands should be looking at it. We talk about the trikes destroying land surfaces and stifling growth. Have you ever seen the trails left by the skidders and the harvesters in this Province? It is devastating, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

By leave.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) harvesters in order to harvest in September. Where would the member stand on that?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know if you are asking a trick question. It is simple. It is a straightforward answer. I am not saying we ban harvesters and put them out. If you want me to answer the question I will answer the question. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the reality is this, I realize that a company has to be viable and economic to survive, we all know that, so therefore, you have to use machinery and technology. What I am saying to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture in this Province in this: wherever they are used, or whatever is used, harvesters, or if there is a new machine invented, the minister has the obligation and the responsibility to make sure that wherever these machines are used, that vegetation and regrowth can occur. It is as simple as that.

MR. FLIGHT: We are doing that.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is doing that. Well, I can give you many examples. I do not have to tell you but loggers will tell you, and many people will tell you.

MR. FLIGHT: They are being done.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sure that improvements have been made, Mr. Speaker. I concur with that. That is no problem, but I have to ask the minister: Do you think it has been done enough? Are you satisfied with it? You are satisfied with it? Well, that is a sad statement, because I am certainly not satisfied with it.

I can tell you that foresters and loggers in this Province, like the fishermen told us, Mr. Speaker, they are not satisfied with it. If the minister spends any time in the woods like I do, and if any hon. member does, and can honestly tell me that our forests are sustaining growth and that growth is continuing, and that we are keeping up with the devastation -

MR. FLIGHT: (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, if the minister thinks that, I hope he doesn't have to stand in this House as Minister of Forestry and Agriculture in a couple of years, or whatever, and say we have to have another downgrade on cutting in this Province. As a matter of fact, I don't know how many years it might be, down the road. Maybe one of us will be Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that day, Mr. Speaker. We will have to stand in this House and say we have a moratorium in the forestry, and that is going to be a sad day for anybody in this Province. I do not believe we have it sustainable right now, and I believe there is devastation going on in our forests that is going hurt the future generations of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to go and blame Ottawa because we have the jurisdiction. We will not be able to blame the foreigners because we are cutting it ourselves. We can't go and blame people, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 4:30 and we move on to the Late Show.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question I asked the minister today, I wasn't satisfied with the response, and I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to the closing of hospital beds in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. What I am opposed to, I tell the minister, and he should listen, is the closing of hospital beds in this Province if there is not a community health system built up to be able to care for those people who are treated through out-patients and shorter stays in hospitals. There are no new front-line people across this Province to care for those surgeries, those daytime operations and procedures and so on. That is what I am opposed to, and I am opposed, I tell the minister, to the closing of hospital beds in this Province if the waiting lineups are longer, and people have to wait in anguish and pain and frustration as the waiting lines get longer and longer in hospitals in this Province.

Now, the minister provided some figures to the Leader of the Opposition in response to a question the other day. In 1990 in this Province we had 2,637 acute care beds. That declined by almost 300; 280 roughly, in one year, they closed. The next year they closed another eighty beds, the next year another almost fifty beds. This year the minister will not tell me how many. We are into the third month of the fiscal year and he still won't tell us how many beds are going to close in this fiscal year. Now, I am not satisfied that the minister, into the third month of the fiscal year, doesn't know what is happening in the health care system. That's what I'm not happy with.

Now, that is the very same government that stated, back on their campaign - and I would like to quote this: `that hospital beds remain closed' - they said when they campaigned in 1989, `while patients wait for months, sometimes in pain and anguish, to be admitted. Doctors and nurses and support staff are overworked,' they said. That is what this government said - `and in many cases underpaid. Facilities and services are strained beyond their limits.' That is what this government said in the 1989 campaign to get elected - `underpaid - they have cut pay, they have eliminated' -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you did. Yes, you gave raises to other people, too, and then legislated them back.

Here is what the Liberal health policy states, I say to the minister: `that as long as demand exists, hospital beds must be kept open.' It also states that `institutions must not be understaffed, and compassion must always take precedence over business administration.' That is the Liberal health policy, and it goes on to state: `If we cannot adequately care for the sick, the disabled and the aged among us, we have failed as a society and we can take cold comfort in cutting costs and improving balance sheets' - the Liberal health policy, I say to them - and here is the commitment: `A Liberal government will recognize the problem which has been created, and will alleviate it.'

He said they are going to alleviate it. They have compounded the problem. They have increased the waiting lines. They have closed beds. Doctors are crying out. Nurses had a press conference today. Everybody in this Province is crying out that there is no community-based health system in place.

I read articles from other provinces, about similar things. Some provinces have moved ahead to put that in place before they close hospital beds. This Province is closing hospital beds and they haven't put anything in place to deal with the problem. I say to the minister that he has a responsibility to do something about it.

Their policy states: `Financial priority must be given to health care, along with education. Professional personnel must receive the support necessary to encourage them to stay in this Province and improve our quality of care. For Liberals, people come before projects.'

I can tell the minister, we have had a disastrous record on health care in this Province. And he said today, in response to my question, that we are (inaudible) with community health care boards. I say to the minister, stop shuffling chairs around boardroom tables, stop dividing this Province into geographical regions, and put more people out into the front lines. We want more nurses in public health. We want more nurses out in the community. We don't want shuffling of boardroom chairs around tables in different parts of the Province, moving it from one area to another. I say to the minister, the way to get better health care is not by grouping Bonavista and Clarenville and the Burin Peninsula together. It is by having a small community-based system that people in the community can become pro-active.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon. member is getting his so-called facts. He said that our waiting lists for hospitals are worse. I might tell the hon. member that our waiting lists used to be bad when they were there, but they have constantly improved until now, we have the best, shortest waiting lists in Canada on virtually every procedure except plastic surgery. Last year we had - and this is something we are quite proud of, that we have done that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: Now, the member is always up stirring the pot, bringing in false statements like the one he just made about the waiting lists increasing. They are not increasing. His statements are untrue, they are false, they are false, and when something is false it has to be labelled as false. Now, we have one of the finest health care systems in Canada, it is not perfect but it is getting close to it. There have been many reforms brought in by the former Minister of Health and we are continuing in our modest way to increase these reforms.

We have put more money into community health this year than we had last year; he is saying we are not. We did, and we put more in last year than the year before. We are improving and increasing the amount of money spent on community health and for anybody to say that we are not, is simply to say what is not right and not true. It is there; we have put forward boards to get at the gaps in community care and that is the whole purpose of having regional boards so that within the region you can have some uniformity of service.

What we have been having is, some particular areas are towns, we have had good service and in others there has not been as good as it should be; with regional boards we will have an opportunity for people to continue the area. The Burin Peninsula I might add is one of the best serviced parts of Newfoundland as far as health care is concerned. We have more long-term care; if every part of this Province was treated as well as we treated the hon. member's district, I think we would all be very, very happy.

We are proud of being able to close out hospital beds. There is nobody objecting to closing out unnecessary hospital beds except the hon. members opposite; people are glad that we don't need those hospital beds, that people are staying well longer and that we are cutting down on the number of days that people have to spend in hospitals, and that we are using out-patients care and that we are having single day surgery and all this sort of thing. We are bringing this in and we are one of the more advanced provinces in Canada because of it in that way, and as far as home care is concerned, I agree that we must continue in our efforts in home care and bring more of it than we have, particularly in areas where it is not in great demand.

Now, let me indicate some other major steps that this Province has taken. We have our physician supply problem almost in hand - not entirely, because, in the more isolated parts of the Province, it is hard to get physicians. But that problem will rapidly be solved, because we are barring physicians from going in areas where they are no longer needed and that is very important for us to do. We are turning out more nurses now than we need in the Province, and steps are being taken to prepare nurses for a new role because the nursing role is not just to work in hospitals anymore. The nursing role is now, in the communities, to provide education, and the various nursing schools have been meeting regularly over a period of time and they are about to bring in a brand, new nursing education program which will take into account the multifaceted role of nurses in the new society.

We have brought in certain preventive measures. Our anti-smoking legislation is the most progressive in Canada. We'll see how that works out. The legislation is good. I don't know whether people will give up smoking or not because you need more than legislation brought in to keep people from starting to smoke but it is geared at the young person.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours on this particular point, but thank you very much.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question I asked the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs earlier this afternoon, relative to an application by the City of St. John's - an application under the Urban and Rural Planning Act for some consideration with regard the requirements to rezone a property located at 130 Lemarchant Road.

Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's has received an application from a developer to develop 130 Lemarchant Road which is the site, as I said earlier today, of the former Prince of Wales College. The total value of the proposal is $3 million. The city has held a public meeting, they held that on May 10, in accordance with the City of St. John's Act, to rezone the property from institutional to apartment high-density. The application has now to be processed under the Urban and Rural Planning Act. This means, of course, more delays, red tape and bureaucracy. What I was asking the minister earlier today was, Is it really necessary for the City to wait for two or three months? Because, in this particular case, there are no other municipalities affected? You're not looking at any impact on arterial streets or not changing the nature of the development on that street. The development now is an unused former school building, and the building now is in a rapidly deteriorating condition. The owner of the building is most anxious to sell it, to have it developed, and all around this is a very, very good development.

Now, I had spoken to the Mayor of St. John's yesterday and also I spoke with the Manager of his Plans and Projects division, Everald McMillan, and they told me that this application has been in the works since March 9 and that they have had their necessary motions passed in the city council. They've had their public hearing, they held that on May 10, and on May 19, they forwarded the minister an application for processing by the developer under the Urban and Rural Planning Act. What I wanted to say to the minister is that the reply they got back said they wouldn't have the hearing until July 5 and, as the minister knows, it can take a month for the commissioner to write his report, it has to be processed in his office and then sent back to the City of St. John's. This would mean potentially that it could be September or October before the development could take place. As the minister is aware, the City of St. John's has a very knowledgeable planning staff, as does the City of Mount Pearl and City of Corner Brook, and why should we not be able to reduce the regulatory procedures and the bureaucratic paper chase that frustrates developers and taxpayers alike and frustrates the municipalities?

In this particular case,the developer has the $3 million dollars necessary and we do know that we need to create the jobs that would flow from the development. We know that the owners of the property want to sell it and that the neighbourhood has given its approval through a public hearing process that's been held by the City of St. John's. So therefore, we wanted to ask the minister if he would try his best to be a facilitator of the development, put it on the fast track, and if at all possible, find a way in which he can let the development proceed without tying it up in unnecessary red tape. Speaking this afternoon, I made reference to the Speech from the Throne, in which we note that the government has said they are committed to doing away with bureaucratic red tape, to streamlining the processes that the developers must follow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: I ask the minister, in conclusion, if he could facilitate development as quickly as possible so all parties can be happy with this development, which is good for everybody concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. colleague across the way is quite familiar with the Urban and Rural Planning Act. As Mayor of Mount Pearl for sixty-odd years, I believe he was in there, he realizes, and I am sure he can appreciate the fact that, to a certain degree, my hands are tied.

He mentioned earlier today that I had received a number of letters from the Mayor of St. John's, and the Premier had received a number of letters. Well, Mayor Murphy, since being elected in November, did mention it to me on a couple of occasions, and I did say to him that I was going to look at it. I don't have a copy of the letter, but I think the last letter that came in was May 17 or May 18.

AN HON. MEMBER: May 18.

MR. REID: May 18? Yes.

Prior to that, my department had been working on making some changes to accommodate the City of St. John's.

Now, under the Urban and Rural Planning Act, one of the procedures you have to go through is a public hearing process. A public hearing process has to be advertised, you have to wait a certain number of days, weeks, and so on, to get presentations if anybody is for or against it, or whatever, and then you have to call for a public meeting. And the hon. member is absolutely right when he says it will take as much as sixty to ninety days in order to get approval on it.

But I agree with the hon. member, and with Mayor Murphy, and I agree with Mayor Pollett out in Corner Brook, and Mayor Bettney in Mount Pearl, that the larger centres, the three cities - I feel, personally, from my own experience, that those three cities could easily handle basically their own urban and rural planning units, but in order for me to do that, and to provide that service, or that ability to the City of St. John's and the other two towns or cities, then I have to go back and make changes to the Urban and Rural Planning Act, and I plan to do that. I am a converted minister. I believe that the City of St. John's can easily handle that type of thing themselves.

I have indicated verbally that comment to the Mayor of St. John's. I am making it public now, I suppose, so I would imagine tonight, maybe, Mayor Bettney in Mount Pearl will know about it, and I am at present working on it, but it is not a question of something that you could do on the spur of the moment.

New legislation has to be drafted, I have to bring it to the House for approval and there is a process I have to go through, and I am sure the hon. member understands that process. But I will make the commitment to the hon. member and to the Cities of St. John's, Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, that we will definitely look at that, we are reviewing it now in the department, and hopefully, by the next session, I will be able to bring in a change to the Urban and Rural Planning Act, whereby St. John's, then, would be able to look after themselves.

Now, in the meantime, I will say that I am aware of the application for a thirty-five-unit apartment on 130 LeMarchant Road; I am well aware of that. The problem I have with it is if we go through the regular process, then it may take sixty to ninety days. I have told my hon. colleague, behind the curtain a few minutes ago, that I will talk to the St. John's Mayor in the next couple of days and maybe there is some solution to the problem that could be worked out that could be legal. Because we can't break the law and, as you know, an act is the law; maybe there is some way that we can work out some solution to this particular problem for him, and I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this won't be the first time that I did a favour for His Worship, John Murphy in St. John's and I am sure it won't be the last favour I will do for him.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to express dissatisfaction with the answer to a question I put to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation earlier this afternoon. During the last sitting of the House, I queried the minister with regard to the bridge and intersection at South Brook on the Trans-Canada and, at that particular time, the minister indicated to me that the bridge and intersection were to be upgraded under the Roads for Rail, the Trans-Canada program currently underway in the Province.

The minister was unable, at the time, to indicate to me the time or the year that the particular project would be undertaken, but he did say that he would get back to me on it. The last sitting of the House adjourned, Mr. Speaker, without any word from the minister as to the timing of this particular project, so I wrote the minister - and that was several months ago. The minister did not reply to my letter.

When the House of Assembly opened again for this sitting, I put a question on the Order Paper of the House with regard to the timing of this particular project; the minister did not reply to that question on the Order Paper.

A number of days ago in debate, I again raised the matter with the minister. The minister basically came back at me, attacked me for not doing my job, but did not, in any substantive way, reply to the question as to when South Brook could expect to see this work done.

Today in Question Period I asked him again. All I got out of the minister was that the bridge and intersection would not be done this year. That we already know, insofar as the roads program for this year has been announced. The minister indicated it may be done next year.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister about some sort of state secret. The schedule of work on the Trans-Canada, at least for most parts of the Province, is a relatively public schedule. People have an idea when work is being done. There would appear to be no reason that I can see as to why the knowledge as to when a certain project is going to be done should be kept secret. However, Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder if this particular minister, who is without a doubt one of the most partisan ministers in this Assembly, is withholding the information as to the timing of this project merely as a matter of political strategy, or a matter of pure partisanship.

When my colleague from Baie Verte was debating here earlier this afternoon, pointing out certain inadequacies in his district with regard to roads and water and sewer, the minister shouted across the floor, `You are not getting it anyway.' Generally speaking, the minister has made many, many comments to the effect that he would never hire a PC and he is not at all enamoured about spending money in PC districts.

This is an attitude that the Wells administration claimed that they were going to change when they took office, that the allocation of money for government services, be it water and sewer or transportation, was going to be given out on the basis of need, not on the basis of partisanship, but this particular minister is one of the most partisan ministers of the Crown in existence in all of Canada today.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated in debate some days ago, in reference to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that while I always haven't been satisfied with projects assigned to my district, we have, nonetheless, received a fair number over the years. We got a couple of more the other day, in terms of the municipal infrastructure program. The Town of Triton and the Community of Beachside both got water and sewer projects, and the south shore of Green Bay was awarded an arena to be located at Triton; a total of $1.2 million for the district. That is all well and good, and those communities are, I am sure, very thankful.

Unfortunately, Springdale received nothing; Robert's Arm received nothing; Kings Point received nothing; and Kellys Island received nothing. No doubt these communities are upset, and understandably so, but at least we get something.

From the Minister of Transportation, that particular department, since the Wells administration came into power, Green Bay has gotten one bridge, the realignment of one stop sign, and the installation of one culvert, which is our big project assigned for this year.

MR. TULK: They have everything.

MR. HEWLETT: The hon. Member for Fogo again puts forward the myth subscribed to by the Liberal government that Green Bay has everything. Green Bay entered the 20th century in 1972, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Peckford became its member. Prior to that we had Mr. Smallwood's son as the member. Green Bay was taken for granted. It automatically elected Mr. Smallwood's son so unfortunately the Liberal government of the day saw no reason to spend money in Green Bay, and as I said, we really did not enter the 20th century until 1972.

Mr. Speaker, there are many gravel roads in Green Bay. There are paved roads in Green Bay that are literally falling apart from lack of upgrading and repair. So I am altogether dissatisfied not only with the answer of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation but generally speaking his attitude with regard to PC districts in particular, and with regard to Green Bay in particular as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. minister going to speak?

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for coming in and standing up immediately, but I was out to a important meeting.

I understand the hon. member is unhappy with the answers that he expected to get to the questions he put forward. Let me remind the hon. member that from 1985 to 1989 we were not even allowed on the floor where the ministers' offices were. Let me remind the hon. member that every time we brought a constituent in, made a phone call, or wrote a letter, they were laughed at or ignored.

Let me remind the hon. member about the people from Makinsons who came in here and asked for a mere $10,000 so they could obtain drinking water, and the Premier and the minister of the day said there was absolutely no money in the Budget whatsoever for anybody because they were from a Liberal district. Let me remind the hon. member that this member doesn't forget. I lived with it for four years. While you collected you $100,000 severance package there were people in Makinsons who did without drinking water. So, there is your answer to the whole situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're kind of testy this afternoon, I think.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform hon. members that we'll continue on tomorrow with the Budget Debate, and hopefully we can reach a successful conclusion to the Budget Debate as soon as possible so that hon. members can get home before Labour Day. That's the objective, that we should get through our legislation so that we can take at least a couple of days off before Labour Day.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.