The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement here in response to a situation that arose before I had the pleasure of returning to the House.

Last May, on the 27th. and 28th., the Member for Grand Bank asked the Premier a series of questions, here in the House, about events connected with the Canada Bay Seafoods Limited crab plant in Roddickton, in the Strait of Belle Isle District. The plant, as hon. members will recall, had been destroyed by a fire in April, 1990. The honourable gentleman suggested - in so many words - and I have reviewed Hansard very carefully, that grave improprieties surrounded the investigation of the fire, and the disposition of the insurance proceeds. The hon. gentleman will acknowledge he made no specific charges, but cast a very wide net of suspicion.

The Premier agreed readily to ask the RCMP to make an investigation of these charges. He did so at once, by means of a letter to Chief Superintendent Butt, Commanding Officer of the RCMP in this Province, dated 28 May.

An investigation was subsequently conducted by members of the RCMP, and specifically by members of the Commercial Crime Section under the direction of Inspector S.G.V. Bloxom. That investigation was concluded late in July. Superintendent P.B. Cameron, the Officer in Charge of the Criminal Operations Branch in Newfoundland and Labrador, subsequently reported the results of the investigation to my officials.

Superintendent Cameron has informed my officials that, and this is a quotation, Sir: "This matter has been completely and thoroughly investigated, and no evidence of criminal misconduct or wrongdoing has been identified. Given the results of the case, there is no further action the RCMP can take, and I - that is Inspector Cameron speaking - now consider this investigation to be concluded." That is the end of the quotation.

The matter, then, has come to an end. It has been investigated by the RCMP, who found nothing to support charges. They've not recommended any further action of any sort, but I cannot leave the matter there, Sir, I must take issue with the manner in which the Member for Grand Bank brought forward these allegations.

I have been informed by my officials that those who made the allegations, and I use the plural, that those who made the allegations provided no evidence to substantiate their claims. The charges were based solely upon gossip and innuendo. I have no knowledge of the motives that fuelled those, and again I use the plural, Mr. Speaker, fuelled those who spread this gossip with innuendo and so I shall not speculate about it.

Now I acknowledge readily, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot conclude that there is no evidence of wrongdoing until an investigation has been completed. But it must be acknowledged with equal readiness that it is irresponsible to make charges and raise suspicions without some glimmer of fact to found them. It must be said too-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite apparently do not want to hear a statement on the administration of justice. I would ask, Sir -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: - I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: This is (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I would ask, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members will know that one of the operating principles of the House, for its dignity and respect, is to show respect for each other and to show courtesy. When an hon. member is speaking, the hon. member must be heard in silence, and a member is not supposed to interrupt or interfere with a member other than at appropriate times and by the methods the Chair has indicated.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says it is despicable. I agree. It is despicable to make charges in this House with no foundation. Now, Sir, if I may carry on.

It must be said too, that raising such matters in the first instance in the House of Assembly, with the inevitable attendant publicity does nothing to advance the cause of ensuring that suggestions or suspicions of criminal conduct -

MR. TOBIN: No wonder (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: I will pick up where I left off, Sir.

It must be said too, Mr. Speaker, that raising such matters in the first instance in the House of Assembly, with the inevitable attendant publicity does nothing to advance the cause of ensuring that suggestions or suspicions of criminal conduct are investigated by the police and the equally compelling public policy imperative of ensuring that charges are laid where evidence so warrants.

I do not criticize the Member for Grand Bank because I accept that he acted in good faith. But I would say to all members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that it would better advance the proper administration of justice if any of us who believes that he or she has evidence of a possible criminal offence would first raise those concerns directly with the responsible police authority. That would remove any doubt that the Member was motivated by anything other than a concern for the public interest, as opposed to a desire to try to embarrass the Government of the day. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and through you all Members and the public, that any matter brought to the police will be investigated in an appropriate and proper fashion, and that the appropriate and proper action will be taken.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This matter came to the public forefront approximately two years ago, but it really got to the boiling point a year ago when the Minister of Fisheries announced after question that the Roddickton crab plant would not re-open. This thing had festered for two years in the Town of Roddickton and surrounding communities, the suspicion of the crab plant that had burned to the ground. The insurance had been collected and there were suspicions as to where the insurance money went. Everything that I brought to the floor of this Legislature came from residents of the community of Roddickton. It didn't come from me as a member of this House or from other members, it came from me. There was a government department that had been contacted for investigation because there were allegations that cheques had been signed in some other part of the Province with a principal of the company who owned the crab plant.

The member representing the Town of Roddickton, the now Minister of Education, knew all about this for a long period of time. As a matter of fact, it was his signature that was signed upon the lease that was entered into by the Town of Roddickton when he was then mayor. There are a lot of festering situations pertaining to the Roddickton crab plant. I brought this matter to the floor of this Legislature because the people of Roddickton wanted it brought here, I say to the Minister of Justice, who wants to return once again to 60's politics of intimidation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Once I consider a matter to be serious enough to bring to the floor of this Legislature, I will bring them here every day, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, of course, the crux of it all comes, Mr. Speaker, when he says on the second page: 'The matter, then, has come to an end', but then, in the next paragraph, went on to say: 'I cannot leave the matter there, however.' No, he couldn't. Because he was weaned on 'sixties and Smallwood's politics and he couldn't leave it there, Mr. Speaker, that's the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of innuendo, rumour and gossip, as the minister has alluded to. Why was it all put to bed? Why isn't it still festering in Roddickton today? Because I brought it to the floor of this Legislature. That is why it is not festering. That is why it has been put to bed. It could have still been going on if I had not done that, I say to the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: So I have cleared up the gossip and the innuendo and all the other rumours that were going around Roddickton, if I did nothing else, I say to the Minister of Justice, and I will continue to do it, whether he thinks it is right or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Premier. Unfortunately, he is not here. They are financial questions. The Minister of Finance is not here, so I will have to ask the questions, I guess, of the Acting Minister of Finance, who, I presume, is the Minister of Health - I'm not sure. I would like to ask the question and we will have to wait and see.

The Minister of Finance announced in the House last week that he intends to bring down a mini-Budget - sometime in the next week or so, I think, we expect it - to deal with the projected deficit, the $160 million or $155 million deficit. Without asking for specific details, can the acting minister tell us what the general approach of that Budget will be? Will it be continuing on the same course as they have for the last three-and-a-half years, which is tax and cut? More specifically, perhaps he could educate his own colleagues, as well as us, and tell us what process will be used to debate this mini-Budget next week? Will there be a provision to allow for a full-scale debate, as you would on a budget? What exactly is the plan? Is there going to be an opportunity for debate, or what?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can say this, that whatever is brought in by the Minister of Finance will be a responsible budget. As to the procedures, they will be announced in due course by the House Leader.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary question to the House Leader. Could the House Leader tell us what process will be used for debating the mini-Budget?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the procedures we shall follow will be appropriate ones, designed to ensure that the public are informed, and to ensure that the House is given the opportunity to pass on the proposals, unlike the proposals to fund the Sprung proposal, which were never, ever brought to this House by the Administration of which the hon. gentleman was such a prominent part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: They took $20 million, $30 million or $40 million of the public money and not only spent it with dubious legal authority -

MR. SIMMS: What a lie!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is accusing me of telling a lie, then let him do it in the proper parliamentary fashion, man-fashion, instead of skulking around as the hon. gentleman does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind hon. members that Question Period is not a period for debate and I ask the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government House Leader to get on with answering the question.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if the hon. gentleman opposite wants to make a charge, let him do it in a parliamentary fashion instead of skulking around as he does.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that, unlike the Administration of which the hon. gentleman was such a prominent ornament, the late lamented Peckford Administration and the even later and less lamented Rideout Administration, this Administration will bring our financial measures to the House in an appropriate fashion and will seek the approval of the House. The hon. gentleman should stay tuned. I would say to him, as his grandmother may have said to him: Possess his soul in patience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure that hon. member that if he is going to continue to act as such a fool as he has been acting in the last few days, he won't be getting many more questions from this side anyway.

Let me ask the Acting Minister of Finance: Can the Acting Minister of Finance tell the House what plan the Premier or the government or you or the Minister of Finance plans to use in this mini-budget to try to turn around the economic fortunes that people in the secretariat of the Cabinet now say are damning. They say that the investment is going to decline in this Province by over $200 million, they say that unemployment insurance is up by 50 per cent, and social assistance payments are up by 50 per cent. This is no joke even though the Government House Leader may want to treat it that way. This is serious.

Can the acting minister tell us: How does the government intend to deal with this serious situation and help turn investment around and create jobs in this Province? Can he tell us that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education. I am sorry! The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty hard to keep track of what is going on, particularly when we are mesmerized by the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition who is totally confused now as a result of his exchange with our House Leader.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in due time all things will be revealed. When the Minister of Finance presents his mini-budget, if that is his plan, then it will be revealed and then you will see the light.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister a supplementary. It is not surprising we are not getting any answers because their are no plans, obviously, and that is why he can't give an answer.

Despite the fact that we know now, as a result of the minister's statement a few days ago, that personal income tax is down by $47 million, despite the fact that the government has increased personal income tax in their three-and-a-half years in office, by six per cent come next January, I believe it is - so we now know about the $47 million drop in personal income tax - can the minister tell us how much the retail sales tax is down, how much is the payroll tax down and are the estimated revenues of liquor and cigarettes and lotteries up? Can he tell us that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the two or three months that I have been in the new portfolio I have not been fully aware of all the details of the Department of Finance. So I will take this question under advisement and advise the member accordingly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Trying to get answers to any questions out of this government is like pulling hens' teeth.

Let me ask the minister this: Does he know the answer to this question? He should, because it is an extremely critical question. About three weeks ago, on October 22, the Minister of Finance announced that government was selecting consultants for fourteen capital works projects. He will remember that statement, just leading to a lot of speculation about an election, he might recall. Last week, on November 12, three weeks later, the Minister of Finance announced an immediate freeze on consultants for all government departments. Can the minister tell us now: Does that freeze include those consultants selected to do the design work on those fourteen capital projects announced by him a week or so before?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I raised the same question with my colleague and he assured me that his plans were that he would not include those consultants. I would prefer to check and see if that is still his position.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Does the Minister of Public Works know the answer to that question?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the statement said that there would be a freeze on the hiring of consultants for current account expenditures. It is my understanding that that freeze does not include the hiring of consultants for the fourteen projects or so that were recently announced.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not going to get too many answers from the acting Minister of Finance.

Let me ask the Minister of Development, Mr. Speaker: He is aware of the recent economic quarterly review which provides information to us, which says: the capital investment in the Province is projected to decline by 6 per cent next year, nearly $200 million. Can the minister tell us what, if anything, he has planned to turn that particular trend around and to attract investment into this Province? Will there be anything in the mini-budget to address that particular problem?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, being a former Finance Minister, ought to know that we can't share - prior to any economic statement or mini-budget that the Minister of Finance chooses to make in the House of Assembly - what would be in that.

He is quite right when he refers to that report, there hopefully will be measures in there to reverse that trend. We are seeking investment all the time. It is very, very difficult. This is a very difficult time for the Province, it is a difficult time for the government. He ought to know that one of our chief problems, of course, is dealing with the immense debt that we have been saddled with. This little Province owes $5.5 billion. We pay nearly $550 million in interest every year, as we begin to determine how we are going to deal with revenues and expenditures.

He raises a good point. It is something that we are discussing and debating in Cabinet and we hope that there will be some measures in there to send a positive signal to the business and investment community.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for that. The minister will know, also, that as expenditures have been cut, so revenues have decreased as well. Mr. Speaker, what will the minister propose to do? I realize he can't tell us what is in the budget. Surely the minister, who has been in that portfolio for three-and-a-half years now knows what a fuss that will be. He knows that turning the economy around is not something that is going to happen overnight. We see, in the great strategic economic plan, the government's long-term proposal.

Is the minister advocating to his colleagues some immediate short-term proposals? Some cut in taxes, for example, to stimulate investment and investor confidence in this Province?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the question the hon. member asks is one that puts me in a position that if I answer, he is up on his feet saying: There - there is a budget leak.

Of course I put forward some proposals with respect to the business community and how we can stimulate economic activity. Of course I have done that, but we have to look at the bigger, broader picture. We have a very, very difficult time ahead of us in the next few weeks, dealing with the problems of the current account deficit, that have mushroomed, because of nobody's fault in this Assembly, and indeed nobody's fault in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to put forward some positive suggestions. We hope they will be contained in the mini budget. Indeed, he refers to the strategic economic plan, and rightfully so. He points out that this is the long-term strategy of the government. That is not a magic wand plan, and it is not something we put forward to say to the people of the Province that this is going to heal the economy overnight. It is not. That is the long-term plan, but collectively and together we are trying to come up with some solutions that will offer some short-term stimulus to the economy.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we all welcome the long-term plan. What we are asking now is: What is the short-term plan? We may not be here for the long term if there is not a short-term plan to turn the economy around quickly.

Let me ask the minister this: What is he specifically going to do? This has nothing to do with the budget. What is he specifically going to do to restore investor confidence in the economy? We have all seen it, and we have seen it particularly in the last week, since the minister made his announcement of the growing deficit. Basically the economy is frozen for the next couple of weeks until the mini budget comes down. Does the minister have a plan - a specific plan - to restore investor confidence in this Province, to give business people and individuals a little hope and a little light at the end of the tunnel?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks that somehow we can add hot water to something instant, and stir it and create all kinds of economic - if he thinks there is an instant solution, surely he is in a dream world. He is not in the real world.

This is not a problem just belonging to Newfoundland. We do not have a monopoly on what is happening to the country's economy, or indeed the world economy. His colleagues in Ottawa: what are they going to do to stimulate the economic performance of this nation? What are they going to do? We have been hit, as he has seen in this statement, by time after time, year after year, cutbacks on transfer payments. That falls into the laps of the provinces. We have to deal with that, and we have to deal with it in a sensible way that the member himself rightly pointed out. It is a very marginal line that we are walking, which will require drastic medicine, to use his own phrase, because the bond markets are watching, and because we need to borrow next year, just to maintain the status quo as we know it now.

It is not an easy answer, and his questions are difficult. They cannot be answered in thirty seconds in the House of Assembly. We are doing some creative thinking about this. We are putting these thoughts together for the Minister of Finance, and we hope to come out with some positive signals, not only dealing with the current account problem, but sending a positive and correct and good signal to the business community.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health.

In a press release yesterday afternoon, the Captain Jackman Hospital in Labrador City, Wabush, said it had been told to cut more than $100,000 from its budget for the remainder of the fiscal year, which is only four months. The minister has obviously sent out orders to all hospital and nursing home boards about that. How much in total have these boards been told to cut from their budget for the next four months?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the total here, but it is 1 per cent of salary budget and 3 per cent of operating. Each hospital and nursing home and department of government and related agency was given the assigned amount, the 1 per cent and the 3 per cent, and asked to report back to government on the implications of this. They're going to report back I think by Friday, and then we're going to get over it. But in answer to his question, I would have to just check out the total amount. He himself could check it out pretty easily by looking at the Budget figures of last year and calculating 1 per cent of salaries and 3 per cent. I just don't happen to have it here with me now.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: I would say to the minister: percentages I'm not interested in. I'm sure the people are not interested in percentages. We are interested in the actual amounts that hospitals and nursing homes are going to be cut. I'm hoping that the minister will have that information available to us today before the House closes.

Let me ask him, Mr. Speaker: The government has pared hospital and nursing home budgets to the bone in previous budgets. Does the minister seriously believe that these hospitals and health care boards can make all of these cuts without any cuts in services to the sick and the elderly of the Province? Does he seriously believe that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as I say we have written all the people with the targets and they're to report back on the implications. When we receive back the implications, and we're having discussions with the various hospitals and nursing homes on that matter, we will then be able to properly assess the affects of the necessary budgetary adjustments. So I think it's premature to try to answer that question. I can assure people though that uppermost in the minds of this government is the appropriate care for people in hospitals.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, that's what everyone is interested in, appropriate care, but are the cancer clinics in Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Burin, where the services of specialists have been suspended for the first time in twenty-one years, is that an example of appropriate care that people are going to get in the hospitals around this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised that question three or four days ago -

MR. DOYLE: No.

DR. KITCHEN: -or his Leader over there. He frightened a great number of people in this Province in a very irresponsible way. The director of the institute had to take him on on television and say that he was just stirring up trouble and tormenting the people of this Province. Now, since this has already been answered and since we've made sufficient statements in the House on that, I don't know why the hon. member doesn't consult Hansard and stop trying to stir the pot unnecessarily and frighten people when there's no need of it. I'm tired of the fearmongering from the Opposition. It's very much like the Member for Grand Bank, stirring up trouble in Roddickton when there was no trouble.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) short and curlies, boy, short and curlies, that's all we remember.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Your Valium didn't kick in yet today, did it?

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister of Health that the Leader of the Opposition might have been stirring up trouble, but he was right. He was right. The minister can't deny that, he was right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this. The new hospitals for St. Lawrence, Burgeo and Port Saunders, which were started by the government when they first came to office, and which now are nearing completion, how will hospital boards in the Province be able to run these new facilities if the minister is making these types of cuts that he says he's making? Are these new facilities indeed going to open, or are they going to be delayed?

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

DR. KITCHEN: More fearmongering, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition was wrong. He said these outlying clinics were closed. They have not closed! They were not closed. All we said was that the people who were visiting from the cancer clinic, these physicians, would not visit unless it was absolutely necessary, and that's what's happening. It's not good to say things are closed when they're not closed, and there's no point for the critic over there to say that they were closed when they're not. You must speak the truth!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Social Services. Will the Minister of Social Services table in this House the reports of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister of Social Services table in this House the reports of caseload analysis done by his Department which were requested in the House last Friday? In particular, those caseload analysis reports of the child protection units and the child welfare division? Is he in a position to do so today, or is still trying to find ways of presenting the figures so as to disguise the reality of the inadequate child protection staff and child welfare staff in his department?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House when asked the question by the hon. member on Friday, that I would table those statistics and outline for the House the caseloads over the past few years in the various divisions of my department. I wanted to make sure that those caseloads were brought up to and including the current figures and that is presently being prepared and I will present those figures in detail, to the House either tomorrow or Friday.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that the caseload reports that have been done in the last several weeks are the reports that I am looking for, not some trumped up statistics that will not tell the truth. Can the minister tell this House how many child abuse cases are gone uninvestigated, how many children who need the protection are being neglected because of staff shortages in his department? Tell us that.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, firstly let me say that I do not intend to present any trumped up figures, as he would call them. The figures that will be presented to the House will be accurate figures reflecting the caseloads in divisions of my department over the last several years as was requested. Included in those figures will be child care statistics for the same period of years as the other divisions, so that will be included in the statistics presented to the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the minister appears not to be intending to table the reports. The reports are what we need because that shows the inadequacies of the present staffing levels. Will the minister also table in this House, the report of the Child Welfare League of America that was requested by his department? Has that been presented to his department yet by the Child Welfare League of America, and if it has, will he present it in this House and if it has not, will he commit himself to presenting it in this House and tabling it on the floor of this House?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check whether or not the report of the Child Care League of America is complete. I have seen reports that they have completed, but whether their work is finalized I would have to check with the appropriate division to find that out, Mr. Speaker, but I will do that and if their work is completed, I see no reason why the details of their recommendations could not be made available.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education if instructions have been given to school boards, community colleges and the University to reduce expenditures for the balance of this fiscal year.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically that they have or have not, however I would suggest that over the next little while the schools will indeed be asked to come to grips with the expenses problems in view of the fiscal statement, which my colleague, the Minister of Finance will bring down in the next week or so.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister tell this House what he expects to save in salary and operating budgets over the next four months? Could he give us a total amount of how much he expects to save in salary and other budget amounts?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is new to the House, but surely he does not want me to read out the Budget Speech today. Mr. Speaker, that would certainly be a breach of protocol. The hon. Minister of Finance will be up against me, I would be flicked out of Cabinet and the whole media would be crying - press leak. I am not going to give the mini budget or whatever it is until my colleague does it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance issued a statement with a $155 million shortfall. $33 million of that is attributable to federal sources, when you consider the increase in EPF, and $122 million is a direct result of this government's inability to be able to properly forecast the provincial income tax and other revenues, and their inability to control expenditures to an additional $28 million, and if this minister does not know what the cuts are going to be, he is either incompetent or he is withholding information from this House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member should come to the question please.

MR. SULLIVAN: - so where does the minister expect school boards, different colleges and the University to find funds? Are there areas that they can trim the fat and if there are, would he please tell this House where they expect to have these cuts?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has not recognized is that there are several factors which are contributing to the problems that this administration is having.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is not recognizing is there are several factors which are contributing to the problems that this administration is having - the recession which is certainly North American-wide if not worldwide. Mr. Speaker, that is having an impact on us, but most importantly, Mr. Speaker, is seventeen years of mismanagement of this economy. That is the real problem; $550 million a year in interest because a bunch of people acted like drunken sailors on a spending spree. That is one of our problems: total mismanagement. Fortunately the people of this Province had the good sense a few years ago to turf them out, because had we not been here, Mr. Speaker, God only knows the mess we would be in right now. Thank God, I say, for Clyde Wells and this administration, which came in the nick of time and saved this Province from going into total bankruptcy. Their approach was to get up and say it is the 1930's all over again and walk away from it, Mr. Speaker. Our approach it to be a responsible government, a responsible administration, and to deal with the problem, Mr. Speaker, not run and hide beneath some mulberry bush.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think they took a step in the right direction when they fired the Minister of Finance, with a budget of $155 million shortfall forecasted almost $29 million and this government's $122 million. The question is it is obvious there are going to be cuts, will he confirm that they are considering, among other measures, legislation to strip the 2 per cent savings clause and severance pay for the teachers collective agreement? Will he confirm that to this House?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will not pre-judge what the hon. Minister of Finance is going to say in this House in the not to distant future. However I will reiterate what the Premier has already said, that over the next few weeks we will be looking at every single possible way that we can make some savings to deal with this emergency that has been inflicted upon us, as the result of many reasons, the most important reason of all, Mr. Speaker, the seventeen years of mismanagement that the previous administration inflicted on this Province.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The minister will be aware that approximately this time last year we did have a storm and we had terrific tie-ups of traffic up to six hours, a great number of accidents, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, some minor injuries. Does the minister have any contingency plans to put in place this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - so the same type of thing cannot happen this year now - the year we are into now?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in the House yesterday, the department has a plan in place for the winter, and the winter status of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation for this time of year is the same as it was this time last year, is the same as it was the year before that, and is essentially the same plan and mode of operation that has been in place for the last six or seven years.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition would like to create the impression in the public mind that government restraint is in some way jeopardizing the travelling public. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I have compiled the figures for snow and ice control, both the budgeted amount and the actual expenditure, and Mr. Speaker, these figures are compiled from 1985-86 to 1992-93, and the figures clearly indicate both the budgeted figures and the expenditure figures that more is being expended on snow and ice control by this administration than the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table the information that this allegation that there are cutbacks is clearly refuted because the dollar expenditures are greater than what the previous administration spent on snow and ice control. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker. That is a real commitment. That is not words, that is money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is getting a bit lengthy with his answer, so I would ask him to finish rather quickly, please.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, the plan for this time of year is to have the foreman assess the road conditions generally between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m. every day. If, in the foreman's opinion, equipment needs to start work at 5:00 a.m. or at any time, he can issue the instructions to have that equipment start work. He can have it at 5:00 a.m., he can have it at 6:00 a.m., he can have it at 8:00 a.m. This system that we have in place depends on the judgement of the foremen, and we have competent, capable foremen around this Province exercising their best judgement to protect the travelling public. In these three particular cases the foreman exercised his judgement and dispatched the equipment when he felt it was necessary for the equipment to be dispatched.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some questions were raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the three accidents which occurred on November 16, and I undertook to provide the information in relation to those questions.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in Question Period, I do have the summary of expenditures, which I would like to table, for snow and ice control, which clearly indicates that there has been no restraint in this particular area.

I indicated that I would check on the status of the department - as winter status this year versus the winter status last year. The status of the department for this period of time, this year, is the same as it was last year, is the same as it was the year before, and is essentially the same as the policies that have been put in place for the last six or seven years. Right now, the system is, that the foremen the department have are dispersed throughout the Province. They assess the road conditions and if, in the foreman's opinion, it is necessary to bring men and equipment on to clear the roads, they have the authority to do that, and the budgetary - that is their absolute discretion. The foreman makes the judgement.

In this particular case, in the three particular cases, the accidents all occurred, I believe, between 2:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. Full crews, it is my understanding, and foremen were in at 8:00 a.m. The foreman, in his judgement, if he wanted to dispatch the equipment at any time between 5:00 a.m. and when the accidents occurred, he could dispatch the equipment. He exercised his judgement, and the equipment was dispatched.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that with respect to the accident which occurred on the West Coast, the accident occurred at 3:15 p.m. and the flyer left Wild Cove at 11:30 a.m. and returned to the depot at 2:15 p.m.; was dispatched at 3:15 p.m. and returned to the depot at 5:30 p.m.; was dispatched at 6:00 p.m. and returned to the depot at 8:30 p.m. So the equipment was available, and it was operating; and in all cases where these accidents occurred, the foreman has the authority to monitor the situation and dispatch the equipment. I believe the foremen are competent and capable of making that determination, and they have the authority to do so.

In these three particular instances, as in the case when there is a fatality, the decisions of the foremen will be reviewed by the executive of the department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that the minister intentionally misled this House, but in terms of the information that he gave, relative to the question that was asked, all he did was confirm indirectly that the winter shift was not on; the only person on was the foreman, and the winter shift had not been put in place. There was nobody working except the foreman! That is what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member, under the guise of a point of order, made a clarification.

What is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation -

MR. GOVER: Answers to Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. minister had answered the question.

MR. GOVER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, let me further advise the hon. member the he has taken up considerable time. In this period, Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, we operate under the same system as we do under Question Period, and members should remember that and try to make their answers as precise and as concise as possible, and not get into a speech-making situation, particularly since the Opposition has no opportunity for reply. Honourable members should keep that in mind, and please remember the rules.

I will allow the hon. member to finish in a very short while.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get this straight. The member sat down after he gave the answer to the question that was asked. I rose on a point of order, and before I was finished making my point of order - and I duly respect your ruling and your decision, and I will accept it - you ruled that there was no point of order. I rose on that after the hon. minister took his seat, after answering the questions. I am now asking under what heading is he being recognized?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can only operate on the - what shall I say? - the goodwill of members. The Chair also thought the member was finished. He was certainly seated when the hon. member stood on a point of order, but the member said the minister stood again, and the Chair just asked why he was standing. He said he didn't have the question answered. I can only assume that he misunderstood the situation. I will give the minister just a minute to explain what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

MR. GOVER: I just wish to clarify, Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to winter status. The winter status at this time of year involves the foreman being on duty at 5:00 a.m. The foreman has to make this determination. Call-back of crews and the leasing of tender and tendering of equipment -

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

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

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is misleading the House intentionally but what he is saying is not the truth. There is no one at the White Hills.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The House Leader can protest all he likes. The point remains, the House has to be told the truth and the minister is not telling the truth. There is no one at the White Hills after 4:30 in the afternoon. I have it here, Mr. Speaker: 'The winter shift will commence the middle of December, or earlier, if required.' I am asking him - and I asked him earlier today: Will that shift go on tonight? Because tonight we get the storm! Tell the House the truth - and the shift will be from 4:30 to 1:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the -

MR. PARSONS: Get up and tell the truth, don't camouflage it. What he is saying, Mr. Speaker, is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order. I won't engage the hon. gentleman in debate. I will say that what he did was improper because he is trying to raise a debate under a point of order. I will say that if he didn't know what he was doing was improper, it could only be because he neither heard nor heeded Your Honour's ruling a moment or so ago. Because the gentleman - and I use the term in the parliamentary sense, of course - from Burin - Placentia West used exactly the same tactic.

All that is going to do, Mr. Speaker, is perpetuate a situation where the rules of the House are being flaunted. It is incumbent on us all to have at least a glimmer of them, I say to my friend from St. John's East Extern. That is all I claim to have but at least I have a glimmer.

When Your Honour makes a ruling those concerned - and the hon. gentleman from St. John's East Extern was simply raising a point of order, I say, Mr. Speaker, and this is out of order, for him to use a point of order to try to engage in debate. He has the same right to engage in debate as everybody else. What he is attempting to do is get the floor when he is not entitled to it, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I say to hon. members on both sides of the House, I mentioned earlier that the House operates on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I mentioned earlier that the House works on dignity and respect. We can only believe what a member says. The assumption is that when a member says something, then that is actually correct.

I have allowed the hon. the minister plenty of time and I am going to move on to further business.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accused me of being a liar. If he hadn't jumped up, but allowed me to finish, he would have gotten the answer to his question!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This matter is dragging on. The Member for St. John's East Extern wanted the truth to be told in this Legislature, which is incumbent upon all members. I want, in finishing, to say to the minister that there have been a lot of research and phone calls gone around this Province in the last twenty-four hours, Mr. Speaker. What the Member for St. John's East Extern has said is not only true about the White Hills, but it is true about other depots all around this Province.

I find it quite interesting that the minister, in his answer, didn't give the details on the accident on the Baie Verte Peninsula, where a death occurred and then the ambulance went off the road trying to get to the accident site.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why didn't the minister talk about that situation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled that there is no point of order.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Member's Day, of course. Motion 6, in the name of my friend from Eagle River.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today, I am very happy to introduce the resolution and call upon members of the House of Assembly to deal with an issue that is very important to the people of Labrador. Today it is important for all of the people of the Province to speak through their members in the House of Assembly on this very important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Member for Eagle River would permit a brief interruption. The Chair apologizes for having to do this, but we have a group of students here. I should have introduced them before, and if we don't do it they will be gone. I thank the hon. member. So, on behalf of hon. members, I would like to extend a warm welcome today to twenty-four Level II students from E.J. Pratt Central High School, Brownsdale in the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Jesse Bown, Mr. Richard Knapman and their bus driver, Mr. Murray Hudson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was indicating, Mr Speaker, today is a very important day for the people of Labrador. We are going to be debating an issue that is central to the minds of all Labradorians. It is very important to the people from one end of Labrador to the other, to have the issue of the Trans-Labrador Highway discussed and debated. Of course, it is very important to have the wishes of the people expressed in this hon. House of Assembly.

I would enlist, Mr. Speaker, from the outset, the support of all hon. members for this particular resolution, because of a number of things. Certainly one of the most important things is that we have in the making today a national highway system, a national transportation policy. We also, Mr. Speaker, have an opportunity through our Premier, who is going to be meeting with the Prime Minister shortly, to be able to express to the Prime Minister the wishes of the people of this Province respecting the Trans-Labrador Highway.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the resolution and, in the fifteen or so minutes that I have to open, I would like to talk about the present situation in Labrador, for the knowledge and benefit of all hon. members, to give them a good understanding of what exactly is happening in Labrador today, as it relates to transportation. I will also, Mr. Speaker, elaborate on the justification for this particular project. I will certainly be talking about the benefits that will accrue to this Province and, indeed, all of Atlantic Canada, by the completion of this particular highway.

Mr. Speaker, I will also be talking about the Roads for Rail Agreement. I would be remiss if I didn't indicate to this hon. House the details of the Roads for Rail Agreement and how that has impacted upon the people of Labrador. Also, Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate I will certainly be talking about the routing of the highway, some of the ways it should be approached from a Labradorian's point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on and read in the resolution:

WHEREAS a National Highway Policy is currently in the process of development; and

WHEREAS the national system as presently defined does not include the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS any funding under the policy must be incremental to the Roads for Rail Agreement; and

WHEREAS the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway is essential for the economic development of Labrador and greatly beneficial to all of the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the Federal Government to support the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador Highway into the National Highway System; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Federal Government provide sufficient funds in the National Highway policy to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, that is the resolution that we have the privilege to debate here today. As I said earlier, I would take this opportunity to ask all hon. members of this House to give their support today to this very important initiative, Mr. Speaker. I would like, for all hon. members' sake, to just review the present situation in Labrador as it relates to transportation. We all know that not everybody has the privilege of visiting and living and being familiar with the issues in Labrador and, indeed, even being in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I know that all hon. members would like to, but certainly they are not able to, go into Labrador and be able to understand the issues there, as they would like to. So I would like to review the present situation in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to transportation.

Labrador, as everybody knows in this Province, is three times the size of the Island. Labrador is an immense territory, it covers a significant part of Canada. Probably 90 per cent of it, Mr. Speaker, is still untouched, is still virgin territory as it relates to development.

The people of Labrador are centered in four different regions. We have the Labrador West area of Labrador City - Wabush where the iron ore mines are; we have Churchill Falls and Happy Valley - Goose Bay and that area, then along the coast on the one side of Hamilton Inlet we have the people from Cartwright to L'Anse-au-Clair and on the other side of Hamilton Inlet we have from Rigolet to Nain.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous territory to have so many people dispersed that people just cannot understand the kind of challenges that are there for the people of Labrador as it relates to the transportation aspect of it, for all of the people of Labrador, excluding the people of Labrador West, because the people of Labrador West in the last number of years have been able to access the outside world by virtue of the connection being made in through Quebec, and now we have a twelve-month service, a twelve-month road link to the people of Labrador West by virtue of that particular connection.

But apart from that particular area of Labrador, we have the other 75 per cent of the population of Labrador totally isolated from the rest of the world for a significant period of time. We have the people of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, who are certainly without any kind of transportation other than air transportation for seven months a year. I mean, people do not understand and cannot comprehend that here we have people who cannot get out to the outside world unless they incur tremendous costs and those costs are not able to be borne by the majority of the people in Labrador.

When you consider that it is cheaper to fly from Gander to London, England; it is cheaper, Mr. Speaker, to fly from Gander to London, England than it is to fly from St. John's to Cartwright. When you consider that kind of cost, then certainly the people in central Labrador cannot even think about moving outside of their area, of their home for seven months a year; from now, the 20th of November until at least the middle of June, we will not see a vessel, we will not see any kind of outside transportation into Happy Valley -Goose Bay. People do not understand, I don't think, what that means and what it is like to live in that kind of a situation and that kind of situation is not unknown to other parts of Labrador.

From Rigolet to Nain, we have the people there isolated for at least five months a year. From now until at least June, or at least in a month from now until June we have the people from Rigolet North who are totally isolated and as I said, the cost is insurmountable for the vast majority of these residents. Then on the other side of the Hamilton Inlet where you go from Cartwright to L'Anse- au-Clair - well, I guess to be perfectly fair in the assessment of transportation, there are even two sections there, from Cartwright to Mary's Harbour. That is an area where there is no road presently and it is an area where the only means of transportation, again for six months of the year, is air transportation.

In the Labrador Straits, we do have the virtue of a highway, some ninety miles of paved highway connecting the seven communities from L'Anse-au-Clair to Red Bay, and of course there is ninety miles of paved highway on the other side of the Quebec border, so we have about 180 miles of paved highway in that particular area for the people to use, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, after the 1st of January there is no access to the Island, there is no access to Quebec, there is no access to the outside world for anybody in a vehicle. They have to put up with the fact that the ferry will discontinue at that time, and certainly there will not be any access to the outside world until at least the middle of May of every year. So about five months and a half or so every year even the people of this area are totally isolated.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the context upon which we approach this issue today. The people of Labrador have always been fair people. The people of Labrador have always expressed their willingness to participate in this Province and to contribute to this Province in a very meaningful way. We have always welcomed our friends and our neighbours from the Island of Newfoundland who went down there to fish in the early years and certainly continue to do so today. We have always welcomed our friends from the Island parts of this Province to Labrador West when we started the iron ore mines. We have members in the hon. House of Assembly who are not native to Labrador, who represent Labrador, and certainly they have been embraced as great Labradorians who have the best interest of Labrador at heart.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have here today is a good, honest, fair-minded people who are coming to this hon. House through this resolution asking the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to endorse a program, to endorse a policy that will see the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway, because, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that this highway be done for the people of Labrador. But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, it is not only for the people of Labrador that this needs to be done. It has to be done for the people on the Island of the Province. It has to be done for the benefit of the people in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, Mr. Speaker. It has to be done for all of the people in Eastern Canada because it is an opportunity that cannot be neglected any longer.

We are asking, Mr. Speaker, to have the Marine Atlantic system assessed. We are asking the people to look at what is happening with that transportation system, Mr. Speaker, to see if, indeed, we are getting our best bang for our buck, and I would suggest that we are not. I would suggest that today we are losing as a net loss every year some $20 million to $25 million a year just going down the drain, just being poured endlessly. Scarce, precious dollars being poured endlessly down the drain for three and a half to four months of service to Labrador, to coastal Labrador, to Goose Bay every year through Marine Atlantic.

Only a couple of years ago, Mr. Speaker, the first boat didn't get into Nain until the last of August, and then they were gone again the twelfth of November. So here you have September and October - less than three months of service for $20-some million - $25 million. Twenty-five million dollars, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of money these days to be paying for anything, but to be paying for a service like the transportation policy dictates today, to be paying for a service that is only serving the people for three and a half to four months a year is absolutely disgraceful. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have to cast a very critical eye on the service that Marine Atlantic is providing and see if we cannot find a better way to be able to spend that money, if we can't find a way to redirect those resources so that the people of Labrador can be given not a three and a half month service, not a three and a half month delivery of their goods and services, but a twelve month service. That is the kind of thing that we are asking that should be taken seriously, Mr. Speaker. And I would submit that it has to happen for a number of reasons.

Apart from the reasons that I have outlined, the fact that we do have the $20-some million there right now that is being wasted year after year, Mr. Speaker, I also think that the economy and the transportation system as we have it now, through the virtues of this government in the last couple of months, we have now indicated that we are going to set the history of Labrador. We are going to start the history of Labrador and the transportation going in the right direction by seeing the road from Goose Bay to Churchill Falls and into Labrador City, kept open this year. That is a milestone that this government should be proud of, and I know the people of Labrador are very thankful of the kind of contribution that this government has made to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

What we have to keep in mind is that now that this particular road is going to be open, now that we are going to see continuous traffic go from Labrador City to Goose Bay, by virtue of the tractor trailer, we are going to see 60 per cent of Marine Atlantic's demand disappear. The people of Happy Valley - Goose Bay are not going to use the coastal boat service when they can have their goods and services delivered to them by truck from Labrador West and from Quebec. They will not do it.

I submit that in five year's time there will be no need to have a vessel going into Happy Valley - Goose Bay with freight, because the demand will not be there for that freight to be delivered. It will be brought in by transport truck into Happy Valley - Goose Bay, as it is being done today.

So we are going to be presented with a very, very difficult situation, and one that has to be looked at very seriously. We are going to be presented with a situation where we have not $25 million that is going to be demanded out of the public purse, but it will obviously have to increase once you lose 60 per cent of your revenue, and you still have to service that vast territory from Mary's Harbour, Red Bay area down to Nain. That will still have to be done. That 1,500 miles or so of coastline, the people will still have to be serviced. That will still have to continue. Those operating expenses will still have to be there, so we are going to have ever-increasing demands on the public purse of this country to support this particular aspect of transportation. I would submit that we are going to have to seriously look at this, because I think there has to be a better way to use these precious dollars than they are being used right now.

Of course, it takes no genius to calculate and conclude that over the last twenty years some $500 million has been spent on the Marine Atlantic service to see that that particular aspect of the service is put into Labrador under the Terms of Union. I would submit that we would be dishonest; we will be certainly abdicating our responsibility as legislators if we look to the future of this Province in the next twenty years and see that we are going to see another $400 million or $500 million spent on this service while the people of Labrador still do not have a proper highway to service their needs.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very serious issue, and one that has to be approached in a very responsible fashion, but I also submit that it has to be done very soon. We cannot allow the continuous expenditure of this nature without some kind of plan, and without some kind of process in place where we will be able to see progress on the Trans-Labrador Highway at the same time as we are seeing the goods and services delivered to the coastal communities in Happy Valley - Goose Bay by water.

I would point that out for hon. members, and in the twenty minutes that I will have to conclude, later on this afternoon, I will go through what I believe are the very important and salient matters to be raised as far as the economics of this project is concerned, because I want no allusions to be left there after today - that we are not looking for a handout. Labradorians are not asking for a handout. We are not asking that people be given money to produce a highway that will not be paid for, every dollar of it, Mr. Speaker. We're not asking that. We want to make sure that we are not looking for something to serve as a social program. We are looking for something that will be based on good, sound, hard economic facts.

I want to in the last twenty minutes illustrate our case on the basis of these matters. That we are able to prove beyond a doubt, and I am confident that the present study being done by the comprehensive Labrador agreement will conclude - I'm very optimistic that that study will conclude - that the rationale for the Trans-Labrador Highway is based on sound economic facts. That we will see accrue to this Province, accrue to this country, the kind of economic return that of course must be there in order to approach a project of this magnitude when we're dealing with so many precious dollars of the taxpayers' money.

I look forward to hearing the other hon. members of this House today expound upon this resolution. Certainly I would hope that they can give their support to it, and I would certainly be listening to any of the arguments that they may put up, for or against the particular resolution. I hope that we can come out of here this afternoon with an unanimous point of view to the effect that this resolution should carry, and that it should be carried out of this House into the office of the Prime Minister when the Premier meets with him in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure and it is a privilege to be able to rise in my place and say to the hon. Member for Eagle River that his comments for the first twenty minutes I have no fault with. I can see where this road was called the 'Freedom Road,' because it certainly freed a lot of people to escape from that isolation that they were in for the longest time.

I remember myself when I worked at Goose Bay it was isolation plus. You were there and there was no way out. I'm sure that perhaps that road would certainly be a benefit to the entire area, Churchill Falls, and go right on to Montreal if you wanted to. Certainly the road would be advantageous to a great number of people.

When I worked in Goose Bay, Labrador, the only people who had cars for any advantage to themselves was the military. They used theirs up and down the runway, for policing or whatever. Then when Happy Valley came on-stream civilians used cars, buses and whatever, because many of the people went out there to live. But that was it. North West River was a demarcation line. If there ever was isolation, that was isolation.

It's a very important issue and I can see where the hon. member is coming from. The Premier I think is due to go away next week, and there are monies I believe to be made available, new monies. Not monies from the Roads for Rails but some new monies to come from the federal coffers. But this is where I differ from the hon. member.

I'm sure that no matter if monies are made available by the federal government that I'm sure it's not going to be 100 per cent costed by the federal people. It'll be cost-shared in one way or the other. We have now $70 million, or close to it - $68.2 million - already allocated by the federal government to do the Outer Ring road, under the Roads for Rail Agreement and - one second now.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) the railway, anyway.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave always has an interjection, whether you are right or wrong, it doesn't matter, just for the sake of yakking, and the hon. Member for Pleasantville, as well. Mr. Speaker, if someone will come to me, I will have a copy made of this. It says: The hon. gentleman who brought this before the House will fight plan for $100 million Outer Ring Road money. So, as I stand here this evening and talk about the monies allocated to the Outer Ring Road, yes, I am addressing what that hon. member addressed in the media.

I am certainly not going to say that Labrador should not get that highway. I am certain you will never get me on my feet here to say anything like it. I think perhaps if there is new money available,then they should get part of it, at least. But, Mr. Speaker, that hon. member has publicly stated that the money allocated to the Outer Ring Road should be spent on the Labrador Highway, and I think that is an incredible idea for any common sense, right-thinking hon. member to come up with, to take money - What has he against the people of St. John's and its environs? I mean, all I can hear from him is lashing out at the people in this area. I want to make it quite clear to this House, Mr. Speaker, that I stand here and I am being truthful in saying that that Outer Ring Road is a must. It is a necessity. It is a necessity to relieve the situation that is occurring every day on Prince Phillip Parkway, on Columbus Drive.

I want to point out to the hon. member - he talks about Red Bay and I agree that Red Bay, too, is isolated on that coast, but they do have half-decent roads within those communities. But to facilitate Red Bay, you are talking about 3,000 people and those 3,000 people do have a right but the point remains that if this highway were built to Red Bay, an extension of the highway, then who would maintain it? I mean, the government doesn't have the money now to maintain what we have. You heard the minister today talking about shifts on duty. There are no shifts on; there is no money, apparently, to pay the workers, and now the hon. gentleman talks about extending the highway.

Mr. Speaker, if we like it or lump it - and I hope that the hon. member is listening - whether we like it or lump it, this is where one-third of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador live, or approximately one-third, on the Northeast Avalon, and I want to remind the hon. the Member for Bellvue - I don't think he is in the House and I don't like to say anything - yes, he is. The hon. the Member for Bellevue clapped today when someone mentioned the Outer Ring Road, but many of his constituents commute to St. John's and use the roads here, and are now into tie-ups on Kenmount Road and Prince Philip Parkway and Columbus Drive. His constituents, members of the communities he represents, have to come in and utilize the hospitals, the Janeway hospital, the Health Sciences. Perhaps his children are attending university or one of the trades colleges, all in that particular area; or perhaps he has a flight to catch at Torbay airport and he has to cross the same bottleneck of traffic. I mean, that is not necessary. Whether we like it or not, one-third - I remind the hon. the Member for Carbonear, so do his people commute, a great number of them, to St. John's. And I, today - he will receive a letter. And I ask for his support and the other people's support - where the residents commute to St. John's and will be using this new artery.

We can think what we like. We lost the railway, and I think, rightly so. When we lost the railway, there was only one way to get cargo or people out of this Province without using the roads - tractor trailer or whatever - it was through Torbay airport, and that is part and parcel of it. We don't have any other access now and this road would relieve the situation of heavy traffic, commercial traffic, vehicular traffic across Columbus Drive, across the Prince Philip Parkway, leaving it free for other people, the students attending university, people in emergency situations who want to get to the Health Sciences Complex, when it is a matter of life or death, people who want to bring their children or their grandchildren to the Janeway. That is what we are talking about.

We are not talking about building a grand road around St. John's because it is St. John's. What is wrong with St. John's? It is the hub of Newfoundland; it is where the commerce starts and you can believe that if you like. I know every member here is not representing St. John's districts, but the point remains, it is St. John's. And what I see with a great number of hon. members in this House is an anti-St. John's attitude. It is almost like the Baymen - St. John's days.

I have no objection to the hon. member rising in his place and presenting that resolution, none whatsoever, but I do have reservations, and I do have complaints when that hon. gentleman rises in his place; and he will do it in his last twenty minutes - he didn't fool me. Platitudes was all he presented. He didn't even mention the cost of the road, he didn't mention the building of the road, he didn't mention anything. He is going to do it in his last twenty minutes, and I suggest to the House that he will also say that the $68.2 million that was allocated to the Outer Ring Road will be much better spent in Labrador.

I say to the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: There are too many names to it, Mr. Speaker. It is Development, Technology -

MR. SPEAKER: Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. PARSONS: I am sorry - Industry, Technology and Development. It is confusing.

Now, I know that hon. gentleman is quite capable of performance in each one of those categories, but it is a tongue twister.

Anyway, the minister can rise in his place when I am finished.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you took care of part of my point of order by explaining to the hon. member that it is Industry, Trade and Technology - IT&T - IT and T.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would the hon. gentleman tell us whether he and his party will be supporting this resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to respond to that.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly respond.

You see, on this side of the House, we don't have a god who sits over all, who will get up here and tell you when to rise, when to sit down, when to answer a question. That is not the way this side of the House operates. I will get up here and say what I think, and the rest of the members are free to get up and say what they think; and this evening when the count is taken you will see who are the pros and who are the cons.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Harbour Grace, where there are a great number of people - you go on the Trans-Canada in the morning and you will find a great number of people, his constituents, and I am sure, that hon. gentleman sees the need for the Outer Ring Road. He can see - he knows. Every member here - and I say to the hon. the Member for Port de Grave that he will agree with it - the need is there for it.

No matter who in Newfoundland prospers, be it St. John's people, be it Labradorians - as I said before, I worked in Labrador. No problem. I don't know all about it, but I know something about it. And I have no problem with those people being facilitated in the best way possible through the means available to them. What I am saying is, the hon. the Member for Eagle River is here for one reason only. He is the Member for Eagle River. That is all he addresses. He doesn't address the concerns of any other constituency in this Province - not another one - only Labrador. His biggest beef, Mr. Speaker, is in connection with Labrador, and I say, fine with me, but we are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We spent thousands and thousands of dollars going around this Province, trying to get Newfoundland and Labrador as the name of the Province. I hope that when that hon. gentleman rises in his place for the last twenty minutes, he will say, 'I am sorry for all the things I have said and done to the people of St. John's and its environs.' He will say, I really didn't mean it - that they should get the monies that were allocated to them. They should get that money.' And I know he will agree with me.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the people outside St. John's, the outlying areas, and I am sure that all those hon. gentlemen - and I call them hon. gentlemen because -

AN HON. MEMBER: Baymen.

MR. PARSONS: No, I was called a Bayman at one time, so that doesn't really stimulate me. It doesn't rub off on me, either.

Mr. Speaker, now I am going to the people on the opposite side of this House. I have good friends over there, men and women whom I respect. I am asking those people today - the hon. Minister of Environment and Lands, whom I see over there, the Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Tourism - I am asking them, where do they stand on this issue? I have written you all letters. There is no doubt about it, you will all get them today. We mailed them this morning. I have written you all letters. Now, I am asking you today in the House, are you going to stand up for the people that you represent? That is the issue here now because this is going to be a divided issue: Take the money from St. John's and spend it in Labrador. I say, if you can get new money, spend it in Labrador. I am asking the Member for St. John's South, where do you stand on the issue? Do you think the money should be taken from the Outer Ring Road and spent on the road in Labrador?

MR. MURPHY: Who said that?

MR. PARSONS: That is what -

MR. MURPHY: The member just said the Premier (inaudible) you had better watch out they don't boycott (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he did. Take away the $100 million, he said, and spend it in Labrador. That is his point. I know there are none of us naive enough not to realize what is happening here today. The Premier is going to see the Prime Minister. He can't pick up the phone and call him because he will get a busy tone, and rightly so - for what he has done, rightly so. But, Mr. Speaker, he is going up now to try to see him. But I want to ask hon. members - I am asking again for each and every one of you to stand in your places and say that you are against your constituents or you are for your constituents. Stand on your feet and say it. I say to the Minister of Tourism, certainly, he doesn't want that money taken from St. John's and its environs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Pippy Park.

MR. PARSONS: It has nothing to do with Pippy Park, nothing whatsoever. If that is what the Minister of Tourism is hiding behind, then I have no reason to even put questions to you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave - I mean, I don't mind him. I don't mind him at all, Mr. Speaker. If I wanted a legal adviser I would be over speaking to him, but apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to address his comments at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you vote in the 1949 referendum?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, how did you vote in 1949?

MR. PARSONS: I voted with the rest of the people around the St. John's area. And I am still part and parcel of them; and I will still stand up for my constituents, and you will never hear me saying: What about Pippy Park and the few left wingers? That is what you are talking about. Do you know what you are talking about? - one-half per cent. The only one who could truthfully stand in his place today and say that what I am saying is wrong is perhaps the hon. the Member for St. John's East. He would possibly say that I am wrong. He would possibly say that a great number of his constituents are against the Outer Ring Road because of Pippy Park, because I think that is where most of them live, in that particular area. That is about a half of one per cent. But I want the hon. the Member for St. John's South, who is very, very vocal, to tell his people, to tell all the people of St. John's and its environs to whom he is responsible - I want the rest of the ministers, every single one; and the hon. the Minister of Justice, he is a St. John's person. Sure, he represents a district of Labrador, the whole district, but he is from St. John's. Is he to defy the St. John's people? I again ask the Minister of Environment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Let me say this to the hon. the Member for Eagle River - I have only three minutes left and I want to say something to the hon. Member for Eagle River; let me tell him something - he is always getting up and shooting off at the feds. He is shooting himself in the foot in trying to shoot the feds down.

In 1985, with amendments, there were two basic components of ERDA: improvements to the coastal road from Red Bay to Blanc Sablon, $11.4 million; Trans-Labrador Highway, $45.2 million. Now let me say to the member - I'm not sure if he's aware of it or not - but the $9 million that went to improve the bridges on the Trans-Labrador Highway was taken from the Torbay by-pass road. We all knew it and agreed with it. I was asked about it. That's where the $9 million came from, from the Torbay by-pass road. We agreed to let it go to help the people in Labrador. We all did. I was one of the people who was asked about it. We let it go. Now he gets up and almost vilifies the people in this area.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't in government.

MR. PARSONS: Government what? What are you talking about, in government? This is all federal funding, boy. Now I want to say to the members opposite, if they were to spend - economic times are rough - there is $70 million to be spent, federal funding. What percentage of that will end up in the provincial coffers? I'd say anywhere from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. It's labour intensive. The road has to go there.

I'd say to the hon. Member for Eagle River, I support your motion for new monies. Where I cannot support you is when you get on with this type of blarney when you say the money should be taken from the Outer Ring road and placed on the Trans-Labrador Highway. For this, I will never sit down and listen to that hon. member. I ask again, for the members from the St. John's region, I ask the members of the St. John's region: are they going to sit idly by and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: He is an hon. member. I've always said it. But I'm asking all of them, each and every one of them - the Member for Pleasantville - where's his stand on this? Is he going to allow this money to slip away from the people who have a justification, a realisation, that it is to come, for a better network of roads.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: The only thing that the hon. Member for Pleasantville knows about is Triple-E. I've told him before, in shoes more than Senate.

MR. NOEL: Why don't you read the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It might be the appropriate time to remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

In closing, the hon. member does have some good points. If the money is available there is a need for that road. I was there too when the boats were coming in. It was hard lines, to say the least. With ice and whatever, navigation was almost impossible. I say to the hon. member, when he does get in his place for the last twenty minutes, I will agree with him for getting new monies from Ottawa to help with that Trans-Labrador Highway. There's no doubt in my mind that I can agree with that. I support him on that.

On the other side of the coin, I hope that he forgets these other foolish, nonsensical remarks that he is making as it pertains to the other monies that are now made available for the Outer Ring road, to help the people of St. John's. Not alone for St. John's, but the entire northeast area, the northeast Avalon.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I launch into the burden of the few brief words I want to say, let me say two things in response to the speech just made by the hon. gentleman for St. John's East Extern. I'll come back to one of these points later. This resolution does not call for the transfer of highways funds presently allocated to one part of the Province to be used to fund the Trans-Labrador Highway. That reflects the policy of the Ministry, the policy of the government.

He shows me a cutting from the newspaper. I haven't seen it. I don't really care what's in it. Whoever made those remarks, assuming they're correctly reported, made them, and that's fine by me. But whoever made those remarks was not expressing the view of the Ministry. The only people who are bound to the Ministry are the fifteen of us who at the present time are members of the Ministry.

My friends who are supporting us, but who are not yet members of the Ministry, are at liberty to say as they wish, as are the hon. gentlemen opposite; but those of us who have taken the oath of the Ministry, as Ministers of the Crown, are under a different type of discipline and a different type of approach.

I will not quote for the hon. gentleman a song that he knows well about 'a fisherboy who was leaving for to go to the Labrador.' He knows the song, and I leave the thought with him. I have the words to the song, if he is interested, and in case he does not remember. This was the original anti-confederate anthem - not the 1869 one - this was the 1948 one. 'A fisherboy was leaving for to go to the Labrador.'

The point I want to make on that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) plenty of fish.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes there was, and if the Government of Canada had run the fishery properly there would still be plenty of fish, but that is another story.

The point I want to make is that too often, and I say this as somebody who was born in the Newfoundland part of this Province, and over thirty years has travelled around a fair bit of the Island and of Labrador, and now has been sent by the people of part of Labrador to speak for them here in this House.

The key thing in that song is not simply saying: Don't vote Confederation. The hon. gentleman has already acknowledged that he was singing that at the top of his lungs back in forty-eight and forty-nine. Fortunately nobody listened to him then, as nobody does today, but he is used to that.

The point I want to make is that even in those days too many people in this Province simply saw Labrador as a place to which we went. We from the Island went and brought back things, and that is one of the great problems of our time. This resolution is intended to try to address that, and redress it.

My friend wants to say something.

MR. PARSONS: As regards the referendum in 1948, I want to remind hon. gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, that we won the first vote.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my memories of the referendum are few and far between. I was eight years old at the time. What I will say to him is: We, the people, won the second vote and won Confederation. There cannot be a Newfoundlander or a Labradorian alive today, possessed of his or her senses, who would not say that the right vote was a vote for Confederation. I respect the people who voted against it. They have the right to be wrong, but they were wrong, and history has so proven.

I want to come back to the resolution, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I realize in the House sometimes that speaking to the point is not something that all of us do, and I guess I am guilty, as are most members from time to time, of straying from the point. Let me come back to the point of this resolution.

In my view this motion, the resolution moved so very ably by my friend from Eagle River - the other half of the present Liberal caucus from Labrador, who will be one of four after the election, from Labrador, on this side of the House - this motion demands and deserves the support of every member of this House.

I am glad that the hon. gentleman opposite, the first to speak for the members who sit to Your Honour's right, said he intends to support it. I hope his colleagues do too. I understand all of us on this side of the House will also vote in favour of the resolution. I shall vote for it with much pleasure and with great enthusiasm, and I am calling on my friends on this side to vote for it, and as I have said, I believe they will.

I do not need to repeat the case put so very well by my friend from Eagle River, but there was much wisdom in what he said, and I would commend his remarks to the House.

I want to go on, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to make several other points that I think add to the case in favour of this resolution, and my friend from Menihek, I understand, is to follow me. I suspect that he will endorse much of what I am to say, just as he would endorse much of what my friend from Eagle River said, because on this issue there ought to be no partisanship. This ought to be one that commands the support of every member of the House because it commands the support, in my judgement, of every person who lives in Labrador, from the Black Rocks at the border to Nain, or from Cape Harrison on the Atlantic Coast right over to Western Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: I will not be following you. I will speak after you.

MR. ROBERTS: Then I am grateful, because I would rather have the hon. gentleman where I could see him than behind me. I have to say that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should not come to a battle of wits half-armed, I say to him.

Now let me carry on with my point. I only have twenty minutes and I want to use them to speak to the resolution.

The first point I want to make is that this project, to build the Trans-Labrador Highway, and let it be clearly understood, the Trans-Labrador Highway runs from the Straits to Happy Valley - Goose Bay and from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Churchill and from Churchill to Western Labrador into Labrador City and Wabush and then west from there a few kilometres to the border with the neighbouring Province of Quebec.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great national project. In my view, it is one that is worthy of being compared with and in every way comparable with the building of the CPR, one of the great programs that brought this country together, introduced and brought to reality by a Tory, Sir John A. MacDonald, a great Tory, a great Prime Minister and a great Canadian.

You could compare it to the St. Lawrence Seaway, another great national project which happened to be brought to fruition by a great Canadian, a great Liberal, a great friend of this Province, The Rt. Hon. Louis St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. Laurent?

MR. ROBERTS: - yes, Louis St. Laurent. It is to be compared to the proposal to build the Trans-Canada Highway and until it is built, until the Trans-Labrador Highway is built, the Trans-Canada Highway will not be complete. To me, Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Labrador Highway is more than asphalt and gravel and road signs and whatever goes to make up a highway; it is a great national project, it is the stuff of which dreams are made. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is a project which merits the support of the Government of Canada and that is what this resolution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues are finished I will carry on. May I have their leave to carry on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: It is a project that merits the support of the Government of Canada and that is what this resolution seeks. It is a project that merits the support both in itself but also because it will mark the completion of the highway across this Canada, the Trans-Canada Highway. I want to make the point secondly, Mr. Speaker, that this is not simply a Labrador project. As worthwhile and as valuable as that may be, I do not seek support for the Trans-Labrador Highway simply as one of the four members who sits in this House for a Labrador constituency. I seek it because it is the right thing for Newfoundland and Labrador - to build that road and build it soon, to build it now. It is a project that will benefit every single Newfoundlander, every single Labradorian, every single Canadian.

First of all, Sir, it will complete the loop. Travel within the Province, tie together the two parts of this Province, the two geographic parts of this Province, enable people to move around and it will do for the Labrador portion and for the Province as a whole, what the Trans-Canada Highway did for this Island. We finished the drive in '65, thanks to Mr. Pearson, and the Island of Newfoundland, that part of our Province, has never been the same. We finished the drive in '65 - we built the highway down the Burin Peninsula, the highway down the Northern Peninsula, changed lives for the better and dramatically. There is nothing we can do that will more improve life in this Province, Mr. Speaker, than to complete that highway, no single project left. It will end Labrador's historic isolation. My friend for Eagle River spoke to that.

We forget that not so many years ago, just a few brief years since I first came into this House, isolation was a fact of life for large parts of this Province; large numbers of our people. People in the Humber Valley district were isolated until the road was built in the mid-60s, to connect them up with a railroad across the Island and then down into Sop's Arm and the bottom of the White Bay area. All over this Island we fought the battle against isolation. We can't stop until we fight and win the battle in Labrador.

The benefits to tourism - I doubt if my friend from St. Barbe, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Furey) will be speaking in the debate, because a very limited number can speak on a private member's motion, given that we only take one day. But he can speak of the pre-Walsh tourism program; and then, my friend from Mount Scio - Bell Island (Mr. Walsh) will come along - like having had a John the Baptist go before, my friend from Mount Scio will come along and talk about the present tourism program.

Think, also, Mr. Speaker, what it will do for the commerce of this Province. I heard a comment this morning at a meeting I attended -it wasn't mine and I won't name the author. It is not the thought I had, but it is a very, very striking fact, that completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway will reduce by 25 per cent the distance between Ottawa and Montreal and St. John's. To leave Ottawa and Montreal and go down the North Shore, up to Fairmont and into Western Labrador, down to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, down to the Straits, across the Straits onto the Northern Peninsula Highway, down to Deer Lake, across the Trans-Canada to St. John's will be 25 per cent less than the present route by which one drives. Think what that could mean to the commercial, social, industrial and economic development of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me make three other quick points, if I may. First, to come back to the one that my friend from St. John's East Extern (Mr. Parsons) raised, in a way. One of the most commendable features of this resolution, in my judgement, is that it doesn't look to taking money from one part of the Province and spending it in another. Reallocating money is not part of this. That is no way to build a province, Mr. Speaker, and this government have not done that, and will not do it. The Outer Ring Road either is justified or it isn't justified on its own. Those who speak for it have to make the case; those who speak against it are going to make their case. And we should then look at it in a rational way, as to the need for the whole Province and is this where the need should go.

I will speak where I should in the Cabinet, when the Cabinet take a decision, assuming I am part of the Cabinet, and I will speak for, or in support of the Cabinet on it. But that is the way to measure it, not taking from one to give to the other. There has been too much of that in this Province over the years, too much trying to set community against community or area against area. And it should not be done - it will destroy the fabric of this Province.

Next, Mr. Speaker, as the resolution says, this money should be given as an increment, incremental to the Roads for Rail deal. Now, I am not here to talk about the Roads for Rail agreement - there will be another time. I hope we can debate it. I will say simply that, in my judgement, the Roads for Rail agreement is the most infamous sell-out since Judas collected his thirty pieces of silver. It is a shameful, shameful deal, and the men and the woman who supported it will have to answer to the people of this Province for selling out one of our most vital interests, not even for a mess of pottage - more like a pot o' mess-age.

Mr. Speaker, the only good thing about the deal is that it provides for incremental funding. The fourth recital to the agreement, signed by the Honourable A. Brian Peckford and the Honourable Ron Dawe, sainted names from our glorious past - the fourth recital says, 'Whereas both parties to this agreement' - that is the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - 'Whereas both parties to this agreement have agreed that the funding provided by the agreement is incremental to any other funds the Province will be entitled to under any other national or regional programs which may be undertaken by the federal government during the term of this agreement.' That is as clear as can be. Of course, the present Tory Government in Ottawa are trying to say that any money we get under the national Highways program must be set against the Roads for Rail program. But fortunately, we are fighting and we are going to win this one.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has made the case eloquently and effectively; others will. The Premier will raise it with the Prime Minister when he sees him in Ottawa on Monday. The agreement calls for it, this resolution calls for it and, in my view, the House should support it. Because what the present Prime Minister and John Crosbie - nothing happens federally in Newfoundland and Labrador without Mr. Crosbie's imprimatur - nothing. Not a fish may swim without John Crosbie's stamp on its brow, if only a fish had a brow. We have a Brow in St. John's but we don't have a brow on a fish. But if a fish had a brow, John Crosbie would want to browbeat it.

The point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that the present proposal by the Government of Canada and the national roads program deliberately and very harmfully discriminate against this Province. But the agreement is there and we will stand by the agreement. We will make it tick. This resolution calls for that, too.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say as well, just simply to remind hon. gentlemen - no doubt they have all been reading the Strategic Economic Plan, daily, nightly, every morning, every noon, every lunch hour. I simply make the point that the government in the plan are committed to the Trans-Labrador Highway. On page 18 - I am reading from the text. In some places we stand when we read from the text: 'Underlying these economic plans will be the Province's strong commitment to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway through a co-operative effort with the federal government, as well as completing appropriate secondary roads and winter trails. The government are fully committed, Mr. Speaker, to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Let me simply say that the case, in my view, for this resolution, is compelling. I haven't heard any arguments advanced against it from the other side. Indeed, the hon. gentleman from St. John's East Extern, when he finally got to the point in one of these speeches, no part of which became him so much as the leaving of it, if I may paraphrase Charles Dickens - you know, it was the best of times and the worst of times. We've had the worst, now here comes the best.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is compelling. I would hope all hon. members will support it. Certainly, those of us on this side will. And I have no doubt that my friend from Eagle River will ask to divide the House so that we can place on record, for the benefit of the people of Labrador, the benefit of the people of Newfoundland, and the benefit of the people of all of Canada, exactly where members stand on this resolution, which is an historic one, quite rightly, and quite properly, moved by my friend from Eagle River. We should all commend him, Sir, and I am going to vote for his resolution. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in my place and speak on this resolution. I have spoken several times on this particular issue in this House, whether in presentation of petitions, wanting to accelerate the rate of construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway, or in a petition in support of more maintenance being done on the Trans-Labrador Highway, as we now see it being constructed in Labrador - it is presently being used in Labrador.

First of all, I would want to commend the hon. the Member for Eagle River for bringing this motion forward. I want to tell him and the House that I fully support the resolution. I want to commend him for his speaking. As I said to him behind the curtain after he spoke in the initial twenty minutes of this debate, it is the best I have ever heard him speak in the House of Assembly. I commend him for that. He stuck to the issue and spoke very eloquently and with feeling, also with a lot of sincerity and truth in what he was saying, and a lot of understanding.

I support the Trans-Labrador Highway construction also - and the highway being commonly referred to as the Trans-Labrador Highway. Some people like to call it the Labrador portion of the Trans-Canada Highway system, other people refer to it as the 'Freedom Road.' Whatever you want to call it, I support that particular project. I, too, see it as a Canadian, a national project, equal to that of the construction of the railroad, the CPR, the famous construction of the railroad that we had at the birth of this country. I think it is a project equivalent to that, in opening up a portion of this great country of Canada, that's probably one of the last frontiers to open, Mr. Speaker.

The speaker who spoke previous to me also compared it to the St. Lawrence Seaway. It's that important to Canada, I believe, at this particular time; it's also that important to this Province, and indeed to Labrador. It's not just a Labrador project. It's a provincial project and should be considered as such. I've always argued that it should be considered as such. The highway that's there now should be considered as a provincial highway and not be treated like somebody's driveway, as the present Minister of Works, Services and Transportation treats it.

When that road was completed, when the major obstacle to the completion of that highway last year was the infamous Ossok Bridge, the people of Goose Bay shouldn't have had to worry about whether or not the road was going to be maintained this year. The people in Gander don't worry if they can drive to Grand Falls every winter. For some reason it's expected that the people of Goose Bay should have to tolerate that they're only going to spend $400,000 on winter maintenance of the road from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Churchill Falls.

Now they say all these grandiose supporting ideas of - when I say they, the previous speaker, the Member who represents Naskaupi, spoke about how this is a national project. Yet he doesn't even consider it important enough today to ask his colleague to treat it the same as the Trans-Canada Highway system on the island portion of the Province. The people in Fairmont, Quebec are given equal treatment to the people in Chicoutimi. They're treated the same. The highway that was - where people in Fairmont could drive down to Baie-Comeau and on to Quebec City and Montreal, the road that connects them to the national highway network has been maintained by the Quebec government since the road has been completed six or seven years ago. But this government, through this incompetent Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, saw fit to only provide $400,000 for winter maintenance of that highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I didn't interject when the previous speakers spoke. I would ask for a similar type of treatment when I'm speaking. If the hon. members on the other side would like to get up and speak they can speak after I speak. Please allow me to continue.

I am going to support this motion because I believe in it. I'm not paying lip service to it as I feel some people on the other side are doing. If you fully believe in a transportation system across the Labrador portion of this Province you should be maintaining the roads the same as you maintain them on the island portion of the Province. There shouldn't be a question: we're only going to keep it open for two weeks out of a month, in January. The road is built, it's passable in June, July, August, September and October. It should be passable in January, February and March. It shouldn't be treated the way it's being treated today. Don't pay lip service to this project.

I support this motion with the intent of completing the Trans-Labrador Highway, not with the intent of just creating another opportunity to have a squabble with John Crosbie and Brian Mulroney in Ottawa. That's not what I'm interested in. What I want to see is the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway that connects to the Canadian highway grid in Baie-Comeau - which is presently where it hooks up - right down to Red Bay, and on down to Blanc-Sablon.

I think at first we should be looking at how that road was begun, and just a little history of the development of the highway as we see it today. The highway as we see it today was built - and I want to talk about the highway that goes from Baie-Comeau right up to Labrador City and Wabush, and right down to Happy Valley - Goose Bay. In the early 'sixties, with the hydro development in northern Quebec, they decided to build a road to develop the Manicouagan hydro development in northern Quebec. That highway was about 225 kilometres long and it was for that construction of the Manicouagan Hydro development, and also I think they drove the highway a bit further along then to about using the dam as part of a bridge and for building more dykes, they put the road in about another fifty or sixty kilometres, Mr. Speaker.

At the initial opening of Gagnon in 1959-1960, you could drive from Gagnon down to Port-Cashier on what was commonly referred to as the rail bed or the rail right-of-way, but at further development of another ten or fifteen years of development of the mining in Gagnon, the mining company in Gagnon developed a new mine site in a place called Fire Lake which is about 125 kilometres and they had mined out the ore deposit, not necessarily mined out, but it became too expensive to mine so they had moved their mining operations into Fire Lake and they commuted their work force. Gagnon became a bedroom community and they commuted their work force back and forth to work from Fire Lake to Gagnon.

A strike in 1978 and the start of a further development by similar owners in Mount Wright saw people on strike actually borrow the mining company's equipment. The mining company provided the equipment with fuel being provided by the mining company, and they built a highway about seventy-five kilometres long with strictly volunteer help; strikers who were on strike, Mr. Speaker, that is how that road was completed, so around 1979-1980, we could drive - I say we, the people of Western Labrador could drive year-round from Labrador City and Wabush down to Gagnon.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years later, we could then drive all the way to Baie-Comeau when they completed the hook-up between just north of (inaudible) up to Gagnon, and I am very pleased to say that I was one of the very first people to drive over that highway when it was opened. This, Mr. Speaker, was good for Western Labrador, it opened up Western Labrador. We have seen the opportunity to diversify our economy and it has indeed helped to diversify our economy in Western Labrador, which I believe that it can, if properly approached, help to open up new mining opportunities, undoubtedly new exploratory opportunities for people because it was an area - Labrador is much too vast, as the hon. Member for Eagle River talked about, it is so vast that it becomes very, very expensive for mining companies to come in and do exploratory work because they have to use helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft, whereas if we had the highway they could drive and it would be a lot cheaper for them to do exploration work and more drilling. So it can help diversify in that manner and also of course, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to diversify our economy through tourism development projects.

We have been saying for several years that there is an opportunity for tourism to be developed in Western Labrador, if indeed this Province could see fit to do it. It is unfortunate that the present administration did not proceed with the construction of a tourist centre in Western Labrador because it is now a gateway for tourists coming into the Province; it is now a new gateway to the Province. The former minister responsible for tourism had made commitments to the area and to the people of this Province and to the people of Western Labrador, that there would be a tourist chalet there, but the present administration, the present minister has not seen fit to announce the construction of this and I would hope that they would do it so the people of Western Labrador can see it as being a benefit, because we see more people coming in through that route to this Province, real tourists who will be coming in that way rather than through other routes where they presently have chalets.

Again, I want to say that I do not disagree with the hon. the Government House Leader when he suggests that we should not be taking something away from one region of this Province to place in another. We should put things in an area of the Province on its own merits - and I am not suggesting that we do not need a tourist chalet in the Placentia region or in Port aux Basques. I am suggesting that what we do need is a tourist chalet and information centre constructed in Western Labrador because it is needed in Western Labrador. It is a gateway to this Province, and it should be recognized as such.

Mr. Speaker, this administration should recognize the contribution that Western Labrador makes to the Province in general. Speaking of being fair to the people of this Province, as the hon. Government House Leader suggested, we should not be taking away from one region to put to another region. Of course I cannot let it pass that this administration's equality in the education system was to remove student assistants from Western Labrador because they wanted to make it equal to the Island portion of the Province.

Now that was a method of bringing that equality to the people of Western Labrador. We do not want you to shut down your tourist chalets; we do not want you to tear up your pavement on the Island portion of the Province to give us equality. We want you to build a highway in Labrador, and we want you to open up a tourist chalet in Western Labrador because it truly is a gateway for tourists coming into this Province.

I think about 85 per cent of the consumer freight that comes into Western Labrador now comes on tractor trailers, being trucked all the way. Previous to the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway as we know it today, from Labrador City and Wabush to Baie-Comeau, 100 per cent of it, or 99.9 per cent of it, came in in tractor trailers, but by using the railroad through Sept-Iles. Presently 85 per cent, almost 90 per cent is my understanding, is coming in strictly on tractor trailer, rubber tire all the way, and we see this as a tremendous benefit. It has improved the delivery of goods and services. The mining company has seen a benefit from it, in the fact that they can see that they do not have to inventory as long.

As you all know, the mining industry in the world is going through a lot of problems today, and we compete in a global economy. By making it cheaper, more cost-effective for the mining industry to operate, because they do not have to provide the amount of warehousing, so they do not have an inventory cost, they do not have downtime, the same amount of downtime on delivery of parts when they have breakdowns in the mining equipment, so they see it as being something that can help the mining industry.

Of course, it also gives the opportunity for people who live in the area, they found that not only is it an improvement in the quality of grocery products that are being delivered to the area; it has also made it cheaper. So it has indeed lowered the cost of living for individuals living in Labrador, and made it more competitive. It has allowed the mining companies to be more competitive in the global economy. It has allowed our mining companies to become more competitive, to compete against the Brazilians or the Swedes in the global economy in iron ore production.

I would suspect that it would also allow people in Happy Valley - Goose Bay in the industry, who could locate, may locate and will locate in Central Labrador if the road is maintained year-round, it would allow them to be more competitive; would lower the inventory cost to people who have to inventory products for six to seven months, I understand, in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, it will not be necessary. If this government had seen the light, so to speak, if this government had been doing its proper job today, they would not have to have the huge inventories over this winter in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, because they would be able to bring the freight in as we do in Western Labrador.

The Province of Quebec allows the road to be open - my understanding is that the most it has been closed in any winter since it has been opened is about a total of three weeks over the whole year. That is a total of three weeks shutdown. Two or three days, I believe, in the month of January. Usually most of the shutdowns are in late February or early March because of extreme high snowfalls.

So, Mr. Speaker, this government could improve it today. They could improve the cost of living today in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, by keeping the road open year-round, the same as the Province of Quebec maintains the road from Fire Lake to Mount Wright, a very similar type constructed road to the road from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Churchill Falls, albeit a shorter road - I am talking about seventy-five kilometers versus 300 kilometers - with the added benefits that the opportunity could be provided to the entrepreneurs and to the people living in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, by having that road open year-round, without the idea that we are going to have the road open only until we get our $400,000 used up. Don't treat the people of Labrador any differently than you treat the people on the Island portion of the Province.

The people in Gander don't have to worry whether or not the snow is going to be removed or if they will be able to travel on the highway from Gander to Grand Falls. It is taken for granted that the government will live up to its responsibility and maintain the highway from Grand Falls to Gander year-round. The people in Bonavista don't worry about whether or not the road is going to be maintained year-round. They take it for granted. It is an assumed fact. But the people in Happy Valley - Goose Bay do have to worry whether or not the highway is going to be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I do support the motion that the Trans-Labrador Highway should be included in the national highway system. We, in Labrador, should be treated as other people in this Province and other people in this country. Mr. Speaker, when the Premier and the hon. minister meet with their colleagues in Ottawa, I wish them all the best. I support it. I have made my feelings known to the Prime Minister on different occasions. I have made them known to the hon. John Crosbie, I have made them known to the provincial minister, I have made them known to the Premier, and I have made them known to the residents in my district. Mr. Speaker, it has been common knowledge that I support it as being either a part of the Trans-Canada Highway system or, Mr. Speaker, it should be a highway that can be looked at as a national project. It should be.

We have had people refer to it as in the movie, 'Field Of Dreams.' In the movie a man heard a voice and it said: Build it and they will come. I am one of the believers, Mr. Speaker. In the case of the Trans-Labrador Highway, build it and the people will come and visit Labrador and spend their money. It should help the provincial economy, the Labrador economy and the Canadian economy. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, like the other speakers in this particular debate on this resolution here today, it gives me great pleasure to stand in my place and support this particular resolution. There is no doubt that the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway will provide a significant economic benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. No doubt it is essential for the development of Labrador.

I have no doubt that if I asked my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, he would say that the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway would be a tremendous boost to the mining industry and also a tremendous boost for the energy industry in Labrador. I am sure if I asked my colleague, the Minister of Tourism and Culture, if this road was completed in Labrador and added to the national highway system that it would be a tremendous boost to tourism in Labrador. I am sure if I asked my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, would this completed Trans-Labrador Highway provide any economic benefit to the residents of Labrador from future fisheries development, I am sure he would say that that would be the case. Indeed, if I asked my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, would this provide a benefit for the economic development of Labrador, I am certain he would say: The development of the highway system in Labrador would provide a much needed economic stimulus for Labrador, because, Mr. Speaker, an efficient and effective transportation system is a prerequisite for any economic development.

If there are resources, be they physical resources or human resources in a particular location, in order for those resources to be marketed in the rest of Canada, or in the world, there must be some means to take those resources from where they are to where the market is, be they physical resources such as minerals, or fish, or lumber, they must be able to be moved from where they are to the markets, and the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway would certainly provide that link to allow the resources of Labrador to be developed and to be exported from that region, either in their raw form or in their manufactured form.

So an efficient road network in today's economy is an absolute prerequisite for the economic development of any region. Therefore, in order to assure the future prosperity of Labrador, this road must be built. But I would point out that the benefits accruing from the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway will not only accrue to Labrador, but will accrue to the Island portion of the Province and indeed to all Atlantic Provinces, and indeed to the Province of Quebec, because upon the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway there will be a complete link from the Province of Quebec, through Labrador, down the Great Northern Peninsula, down to Port aux Basques and across the Gulf, back into the Atlantic Provinces.

There is no doubt that any tourist who wanted to take that route could then, when the highway is completed, travel from Montreal, up through Quebec, to Wabush and Labrador City, Churchill Falls, to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, on to the coast, and then down to the Island portion of the Province and then across to the other Maritime Provinces.

So there is no doubt that the completion of this highway would not only spur economic development in Labrador, but would promote tourism in Labrador, in the Island portion of Newfoundland, and in the other Maritime Provinces, and in the Province of Quebec. It would be one of the greatest loops, scenic tours, to take in this country, and perhaps in fact in the entire world, to travel from Montreal, through Labrador, down the Great Northern Peninsula to Port aux Basques, across the Gulf and back into the Maritime region. It would be a great economic benefit, not only to the Province of Newfoundland and to Labrador, but also to Quebec and to the Maritime Provinces.

There is no doubt, I guess, as my friend from Eagle River has impressed upon me on many occasions, the great riches that are in Labrador - the untapped, undeveloped riches of Labrador. I am sure there are minerals undeveloped, mines to be opened, electricity to be harnessed, forests to be logged, and tourism to be promoted, all lying dormant, untapped, waiting for the completion of this road network so that the riches of Labrador can be released.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: And in the release of these riches, jobs - jobs in the mining industry, jobs in the fishery, jobs in tourism, jobs in energy, jobs for the people of Labrador - jobs for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would be released by the development of this great highway network.

Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to support the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador Highway in the national highway system. The study on that system began in 1987, and the objectives of the study that began in 1987 were to identify a primary highway system from coast to coast, to develop standards for that system, and to develop funding mechanisms to put that system in place. Some of the criteria used in the development of the roads that should be included in that system, were that the system should connect major centres of population and should provide connections between province and province, should provide for inter-provincial trade as well as intra-provincial trade.

And when you look at the Trans-Labrador Highway, I would suggest there is no doubt that it meets the criteria set out in the development of the national highway system in the sense that it certainly would connect the population in Quebec with the population in Labrador and also it would promote inter-provincial trade between the Province of Quebec and the Labrador region of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and no doubt it would promote, as I have indicated earlier, intra-provincial trade in the sense that tourists or materials that originated in Labrador could come to the Island via the Great Northern Peninsula, and that would promote intra-provincial trade, so when one looks at the criteria for the national highway system, there is no doubt in my mind that the Trans-Labrador Highway is a prime candidate for inclusion in that particular system.

Unfortunately, the system as presently defined does not include the Trans-Labrador Highway and that is the reason for the resolution here today, to impress upon the federal government and indeed the governments of all the other provinces and territories, the importance of this particular road network to the people of Labrador and indeed to all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. So by this resolution here today we hope to send forth a call to all provinces and to the federal government and to the territories to support the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador Highway in this national highway policy and to rectify its omission in the present policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no point in including the Trans-Labrador Highway in the national highway system unless the funds are there in that policy to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway. Its mere inclusion will solve nothing if there are insufficient funds to provide for its completion, so that is the reason that the second part of the resolution is there because, not only must the other provinces and the federal government be persuaded to support the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador Highway in the national network, but in particular the federal government must be persuaded to place sufficient funds in the agreement to provide for the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway in its totality.

I understand that the feasibility study into the social and economic ramifications of the Trans-Labrador Highway is in the process of being prepared, and that hopefully by the end of the year a final report will be prepared for submissions to myself and the federal Minister of Transportation with regards to the social and economic benefits of the Trans-Labrador Highway and the cost associated with that highway. I would anticipate that that study would reveal that the social and economic benefits of the Trans-Labrador Highway will far exceed its cost. When one looks at the benefits that will accrue on the economic side, as I have indicated from forestry and mining, the fishery and tourism and the social benefits that will accrue by allowing the residents of Labrador to freely move from communities; from one community in Labrador to another community in Labrador, and to freely move from Labrador into the Province of Quebec and down the Great Northern Peninsula, that the social benefits will be significant and the economic benefits will be significant and will more than justify the cost of constructing this particular road network.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we stand at an historic point in time, in the sense that for the first time ever, there will be a link between Labrador City and Wabush and Happy Valley - Goose Bay. The standard of the highway between Labrador City and Wabush and Churchill Falls is an excellent standard. The roadway between those two points is an excellent gravel surface. The standard of the highway between Churchill Falls and Happy Valley - Goose Bay leaves much to be desired. It is a very low standard roadway.

Notwithstanding that, the provincial government has made a commitment for the first time in the history of this Province to try to maintain that road link open year-round. That has never been tried before. It will be difficult, there is no doubt about that. The obstacles to maintaining that road open are significant. But this government, notwithstanding that, has devoted $400,000 to maintaining the road open between Churchill Falls and Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and also worked out an agreement with CF(L)Co to maintain the road open between Churchill Falls and Labrador City and Wabush. This is the first time in the history of the Province that this has been attempted, to maintain a road link between Labrador City and Happy Valley - Goose Bay.

Of course, that road link provides a supply line into Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Without that supply line of course Happy Valley - Goose Bay is totally dependent upon goods being shipped into that particular community. As hon. members have pointed out, there is no doubt that the cost of shipping and the cost of inventory in Happy Valley - Goose Bay is significant. The way to ensure that the cost for goods to the people of Labrador is reasonable is to ensure that there is competition between the various transportation modes. In this case, to ensure that there is competition between the shipping mode and the trucking mode. For really the first time there will be an opportunity to have a level of competition between the trucking mode and the shipping mode with respect to supply in Labrador.

When the highway is completed and capable of being maintained year-round there will be a total competition between the shipping mode and the trucking mode which will ensure that the goods and services needed by the people of Labrador are delivered to them at a reasonable and fair price.

This is particularly important as we've seen in recent years with Marine Atlantic, which has launched on a cost-recovery mission and have established significant rate increases to the people of Labrador, in particular, to the people of coastal Labrador. In order to ensure that the people of Labrador receive their goods and services at a fair and equitable price there must be competition. This competition can be provided by a completed Trans-Labrador Highway. That is another reason to support the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador Highway in the national highway system.

I hope that at the end of the day when this resolution is put to the question that the resolution will be passed unanimously by both sides of the House. Because we want to send a strong and clear message to the federal government in particular that this highway is essential to the development of Labrador and essential to be included in the national highway policy.

This is not an attempt to squabble with the federal government over funding. This is an attempt to provide to the people of Labrador what is their just desserts, what they're entitled to. Everywhere, I would submit, the people of the Province are entitled to an efficient and effective transportation system, and so too are the people of Labrador.

In order to accomplish that, if we are to have a national highway system, there must be fair funding, and Canada is somewhat unique in the developed world, in the sense that it is the only country which does not have a national highway system. So I am happy to see that the federal government is supporting, for the first time, the development of a national highway system.

We have entered into discussions with the federal government on the funding mechanism, but one difficulty in discussing funding with the federal government is the fact that the Roads for Rails Agreement exists. One of the clauses in the Roads for Rails Agreement is that any new national program, the funding provided under that program must be incremental to the funds provided under the Roads for Rails Agreement. That is you forget about the Roads for Rails Agreement, and then you determine what Newfoundland's fair share is, on the same basis that you determine what the other province's fair share is.

The federal government has been reluctant to ignore the Roads for Rails Agreement. This administration is on record as saying that the Roads for Rails Agreement was an inadequate amount of money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; was inadequate to maintain the transportation network required into the twenty-first century; and therefore this government is not prepared, now or ever, to allow the funding under the Roads for Rails Agreement to be considered as part of Newfoundland's share of the national highway system.

The federal government must treat Newfoundland and Labrador on a fair basis; must provide sufficient funding under that agreement to allow us to meet the standards of the proposed national system, and to this point in time they have failed to do that. They have failed. So I would urge members opposite to urge their colleagues in Ottawa to treat Newfoundland fairly and tell the federal Minister of Transportation to forget about the Roads for Rail Agreement and give Newfoundland what it is entitled to under the national highway policy on a fair basis; and that has not occurred up to the present point in time; and to further indicate to the federal minister that for the development of Labrador, the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador Highway is essential.

I am sure if we go forth with a unanimous resolution today, Ottawa will hear our call and will treat us fairly, because I am sure our representative in the federal Cabinet, the hon. John Crosbie, will read the Roads for Rail Agreement and see that Newfoundland is to receive incremental funding under any new national program. And I am sure he will go to the federal Minister of Transportation and say: Treat Newfoundland fairly. Do not consider the Roads for Rail money. Give them what they deserve, so that we can come to a satisfactory resolution which will provide for the primary highway system on the Island portion of the Province, and provide for the development of that essential road link in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Up until now that has not been the case, but I am sure that the federal government, being reasonable, and Mr. Crosbie being a Newfoundlander, will convince the federal Minister of Transportation, and the Prime Minister, to deliver to Newfoundland what it justly deserves.

This is not a contest between various regions in the Province - between St. John's and Labrador, between the Ring Road and the Trans-Labrador Highway. If the federal government gives us what we deserve, and adopts this resolution and implements this resolution, there will be funds to develop the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: This is not a contest between St. John's and Labrador, or between central and Labrador, or the western portion of the Island and Labrador. This is asking the federal government to give Labrador what it deserves and what it needs so that its people can grow and prosper and find jobs, and live a productive life in their chosen area of this Province, which is Newfoundland.

So I call upon the federal government to review the funding that it is providing to the Province under this policy; to give us what we deserve, and to include the Trans-Labrador Highway in the national highway system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all I am very pleased with the statements that have been made by members opposite today. But I would be less than honest if I didn't say that I am absolutely ecstatic with the type of support that is coming from the government on this issue at this time in our history, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is unknown, Mr. Speaker, to have the Ministers of the Crown stand in this House and indicate the strong, unequivocal commitment to the Trans-Labrador Highway. It is unknown for us in this House to have heard it and I think, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very significant. I am sure that with the support of my colleague in Labrador, the Member for Naskaupi and the Minister of Justice, we are going to see this issue expedited along the agenda of this Province and, certainly, Labradorians will have their day when it comes to transportation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to say that we want to get this road done for all the right reasons. We want to have it done for jobs, for long-term and meaningful jobs. We want to be able to develop our forestry industry that right now is rotting in Labrador because we cannot produce the wood. We cannot produce a viable business plan to be able to have a reasonable harvest of our forest because of the isolation, because of the lack of a road to be able to transport our lumber from the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area or the Cartwright area to places outside the Province. That kind of project alone, Mr. Speaker, the forestry industry of Labrador, will see hundreds of jobs, hundreds of brand new, long-term, meaningful, high-paying jobs that will be created immediately once the highway is put in place.

The pulp mill operation that was supposed to be in Labrador years ago will be a reality. We will see those hundreds of jobs in that particular area of Labrador, and the best wood in the whole world will be used, Mr. Speaker, for what it was put there for in the first place. It has a 40 per cent greater yield than any other wood in the Province and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, has been recognized to be able to produce the kind of good quality that is unknown to this Province and, indeed, to many parts of this country.

So for our forestry industry, for the people in Cartwright, the people in Charlottetown, the people in Port Hope Simpson that have tremendous wood supplies, who would be able to get these long-term, meaningful jobs at a time that they are desperately needed, because we want to diversify our economy. We want to, particularly on the coast of Labrador, be able to take attention away from the fishery which we have seen prosecuted to a crisis situation today that just cannot give our people the kind of jobs, the kind of economic benefits that they justly deserve. So from our forestry standpoint, Mr. Speaker, we will see created hundreds and hundreds of jobs.

From the tourism industry, Mr. Speaker: My colleague, the Minister of Tourism and Culture has been in Labrador, I believe, four times since he has been appointed to the Cabinet. Four times he has been in Labrador.

MR. ROBERTS: It makes one wonder.

MR. DUMARESQUE: As the member for Naskaupi rightly says, it is making us wonder what he has in mind. I am glad that my nomination is over, Mr. Speaker, because with four trips by this minister down there talking about opening up a new tourist chalet in L'Anse-au-Clair, the $800,000 that is going to be spent there next year to put out the archaic indian burial site and to resurrect and preserve the L'Anse-Amour lighthouse facility.

While I am on that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for all members of the hon. House that we have in Labrador, in L'Anse-Amour, the oldest, human remains ever found in the new world. People do not realize that this is where we have found the oldest, human remains, those of a twelve-year-old indian boy, 7,500 years old, Mr. Speaker. It is unknown to the outside world but it is, indeed, a fact. Seventy-five hundred years ago this young Indian boy was buried in a big ceremony. If you visit the facility, the burial ground, you will see that it was done in a big ceremony where the body was wrapped in red ochre and it certainly was preserved. It was obvious to the archaeologist who discovered it that this, indeed, was a very big occasion, whoever this boy was.

But we want to promote that. We want to be able to give the people of North America a chance to come and see this site, because it is an awesome feeling to be there by that Indian burial site. You can look out across that beautiful ocean and just think for a minute that you are standing next to the oldest human remains in the New World, before anything in Mexico, anything in Canada, anything in the United States. That is very significant. I commend the Minister of Tourism that he is going in there next year to put an interpretation centre around that particular burial site. Because the whole world must be told about it, the whole world must be able to see it. That is why we have to get the Trans-Labrador Highway in place, to be able to have people come and visit that place and obviously, spend money at the same time.

Tourism in Red Bay - The Red Bay facility that is the oldest and first industrialized community in Canada. Fifteen hundred and something, over 400 years ago, some 1,500 Basque whalers came to this part of the world to put together an industry, of which the activity going on there in Red Bay was unbelievable. The Basque whalers came there and made it the first industrialized community in Canada.

It goes on and on. We go down to Battle Harbour, where we see now another $1 million being spent to preserve the traditional Newfoundland and Labrador fishing station. It is the last one left in this Province where we have seen the big stages that the Murphys of St. John's used to visit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, yes, the hon. the Member for St. John's South, his father and forefathers, Mr. Speaker. Battle Harbour was the home of the Murphys. And we want to preserve that. At $1 million, this minister and this government are committed, along with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, to seeing it put in place. I commend the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for seeing this funding put in place and there is no doubt that the endless beauty of Labrador is yet to be seen.

There are tremendous places in Labrador where a fly hook has never touched the water, for instance, where the waters are teeming with trout and salmon that would attract tourists from all over North America, and that is where we want them to go. We want them to go and have that unique experience that only Labrador can offer, and it is only by way of the Trans-Labrador Highway that they would be able to have it, that they would be able to access Labrador as we would want them to. So, from a tourist potential point of view, it is unbelievable the number of jobs that will be created by service stations and by other types of small business supporting the tourism industry and, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that our fishery can also be further developed by virtue of the highway along the Coast of Labrador, particularly the link from Mary's Harbour to Cartwright.

That area there, right now, the 2GH area of the fishing zones, that is just north of the 2J area, a lot of species up there are uneconomical to harvest because of the tremendous transportation cost involved in harvesting that fish and then having to take it 1,000 or 2,000 miles somewhere else to process it; but with this particular highway in place, it will then be possible to come in to Cartwright and land product, and from there it can be processed, put on a truck and sent to market. That is a kind of activity unknown to this Province and I submit that everybody must acknowledge that the future to Newfoundland and Labrador, is Labrador. There is no other place in this Province where we can look forward to creating the kinds of jobs that we will be able to create in Labrador.

We cannot forget hydroelectricity. We will need that highway to be able to serve the hydro line coming across Labrador under the Strait of Belle Isle and on to the Island of Newfoundland. You cannot dismiss the fact that there will be another 1,000 long-term and meaningful jobs created by virtue of the Lower Churchill Development, that will have to be facilitated by the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Speaker. For hon. members' information, the hydro project would be half as big again as Hibernia - 15,000 person years, or whatever terminology they use. Right now Hibernia is going to provide 10,000 person years of work, whereas the Lower Churchill would provide 15,000. It is unbelievable the kind of economic impact that particular development will have on the coffers of this Province.

That is what I want to indicate to this hon. House. I want to express my gratitude to members here today for their support of this resolution, and I believe the people of Labrador would want to, as well. We appreciate, no end, what this Province has done, what this government has done, and what previous governments have done for the people of Labrador.

We have always wanted to be good citizens, hard-working citizens of this Province and we have never refused to contribute. As a matter of fact, for the last twenty-five or thirty years, there has been a tremendous net contribution to the provincial economy coming out of Labrador. Nobody is saying that should not continue. Nobody in Labrador is not looking up with pride and saying: Not only are we paying our own way in this Province but we're contributing to the people in the St. John's area, to the West Coast area, to Central Newfoundland and the Northern Peninsula. We are very happy to do that.

I want to say to the Member for St. John's East Extern, I have never said that the Roads for Rail Agreement should have the money taken from the Outer Ring road and put in Labrador. What I have said from the beginning, and I reiterate here today, is that I want to see the Trans-Labrador Highway started before we see the total expenditure in the Roads for Rail Agreement, because we cannot wait in Labrador for ten or fifteen years before we get our transportation needs addressed.

So I believe that all parts of this Province must have their needs addressed. I would be the happiest man in this Province to be able to get the highways twinned across this Province, to see it done from Pasadena, Deer Lake, into Corner Brook, to have that need addressed. I am very happy with what we are doing, and I will work towards seeing it is pursued, that those extra needs will be met as here on the Avalon, in the St. John's area, to see that these needs are addressed as well.

The point I have always made, and I will continue to make, is that we cannot wait for the fifteen years to expire in the Roads for Rails agreement before the transportation needs of Labrador are addressed. We cannot afford to. We especially can't afford to in this Province with the economy like it is. We can't afford to be losing those jobs, Mr. Speaker, long-term, meaningful, high-paying professional jobs that would accrue by virtue of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

So I want to express my gratitude to the people here today. I want to be able to say to the people of Labrador tomorrow that it was a good experience to listen to the members here today. It's my understanding that the members opposite will give it their full support. I congratulate them sincerely, because I believe that this issue is one that partisan politics cannot become a part of. I believe that if we go out here today and say to the Premier that when he meets with the Prime Minister on Monday he can say; Mr. Mulroney, the people of Labrador, the people of Newfoundland, have spoken. They have spoken clearly by unanimous support of the House of Assembly. They want to have the needs of the people of Labrador addressed now, and addressed in the new highways system program that is going to come down by the federal government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying sincerely: thank you very much for the support you've given to this resolution. The people of Labrador sincerely appreciate it. I am confident that an agreement will be reached where we will see the Trans-Labrador Highway done, and we will see province-building at its best when we see this done. As the Member for Naskaupi quite correctly pointed out, what we are seeing here is not a dream, it is addressing the realities, the needs, of a part of this Province that certainly wants to see justice given them. Certainly I am confident that with this project completed we will have the new jobs to offer our children, the new economic activity, and the new tax revenues to our Minister of Finance, that we so desperately need.

So thank you very much, and we will certainly look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the results of the Premier's meeting with the Prime Minister. We look forward to the announcement so that I can go down quite proudly and be able to see the first work being done to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Those in favour, please say 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

In my opinion the 'ayes' have it.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West will contain himself for a moment perhaps we could move on with the business -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I can't help it, Mr. Speaker, if the modest amount that ministers in this government draw, as opposed to their predecessors, doesn't allow us to dress in the elegant style that hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite affected when they had their noses in the public trough, as it were.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the point.

Tomorrow we will be carrying on with the Workers' Compensation Bill. It has been such a stimulating and enervating debate and my friend from Exploits is back in the House to be illuminated and educated. That said, Sir, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.

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