November

27, 1997

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 39

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Yesterday, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised a

point of privilege with respect to the following remarks made by the hon. the

Minister of Health, and I quote from Hansard of November 25, page 1314. "In

response to the member's

preamble I would like to ask the question: Is this the

same member who criticised this government's allocation of a new $3 million into

the Health Care Corporation to cope and to try and address these very same

issues?"

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his point of

privilege states - again I quote from Hansard: "The Minister of Health,

yesterday insinuated in this House and to the press, in a direct statement just

outside the doors of the House of Assembly, that I opposed the expenditure of $3

million to cardiac care. A statement, Mr. Speaker, that was malicious and

untrue. Everyone knows I have carried the battle for over four years for extra

funding for the area of cardiac care. I ask the minister, will she stand in her

place and withdraw that statement?" That is the Hansard of November 26, page 1.

As it has been frequently stated in this House: Parliamentary

privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by the House and by the

Members of the House individually, without which they could not discharge their

function; and I refer you to Beauchesne, sixth edition, page 11.

These rights exist because the House cannot perform its

functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. The Speaker of

the House of Commons stated in 1971 and debates of page 5338, that Parliamentary

privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House and a

right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member. It has been

said as well of course that: the question of privilege ought rarely to come up

in Parliament, it is essential to the functioning of the institution that

members be free to debate the issues raised without hindrance. However, they

must adhere to the proprieties of the House. Often of course, in the cut and

thrust of debate, statements are made which offend or disturb members. When this

occurs, members usually react by requesting a withdrawal.

As was said by the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1987:

Something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive but,

it may not be a question of privilege unless the comments actually impinge upon

the ability of the members of Parliament to do their job properly.

Similarly, "A dispute arising between two members, as to

allegation of facts, does not fulfil the condition of parliamentary privilege."

I refer you to Beauchesne , 31.(1).

It appears in this case to the Chair that there is both a

dispute between two hon. members about what was said at some time by the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition, and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is

offended by the hon. minister's statements; but in both cases, in the opinion of

the Chair, a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

Before we go to the Orders of the Day, I want to welcome to

the House 100 Level I, Level II and Level III Democracy and Canadian Issues

classes from the Carbonear Integrated Collegiate, and they are accompanied by

their teachers, Mr. Les Yetman, Mr. Cal Harwood, Ms Kim Welsh, and Mr. Ford

Sparkes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well we have in the galleries today, and

I want to welcome these people: Mayor Walwin Blackmore, Deputy Mayor Bob King,

Town Manager Mike Pinsent, and town engineer, Jeff Saunders, from the Town of

Grand Falls - Windsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I believe we have sitting in the

Speaker's Gallery today Senator William Rompkey, and I would like to welcome him

as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

speak briefly about the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Blood

System in Canada, submitted by the hon. Mr. Justice Horace Krever and made

public yesterday by my federal colleague, the hon. Allan Rock.

Mr. Speaker, my first thoughts today are with our fellow

Canadians who have sustained injury due to the contamination of the blood

supply, as well as with their families. As we are a part of the national blood

system, I would like to express, on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, our sincere sorrow and regret to those individuals and their families

for the injury and anxiety that this has caused and continues to cause them. I

know that this has been a very difficult time for them.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Judge Krever for his

comprehensive report. I believe his advice and recommendations will be very

important to us as we continue to design and establish a new integrated blood

system for Canada.

A number of his recommendations deal with the future blood

system. I am pleased that these recommendations are generally in keeping with

the directions that my ministerial colleagues and I are pursuing in the

establishment of a new blood system.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to support the recognition

which Judge Krever gave Canada's blood donors in his report. I agree with him,

that these blood donors make a very essential contribution to the well-being of

our fellow citizens. I would encourage all our citizens who can give the gift of

life, to do so in the interest of all citizens who require blood.

Mr. Speaker, since Judge Krever was appointed in 1993, he

carried out a thorough examination of all aspects of the blood system. My

federal, provincial and territorial colleagues and I now have to put in place a

process to address his long-awaited recommendations.

It would not be prudent at this time to enter into a detailed

discussion of the recommendations, until we have had an opportunity to review

them in more detail, as many of these issues are extremely complex.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is one recommendation that we

have to review very quickly and that is Judge Krever's first recommendation for

compensation for those people who sustained blood-related injuries.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to proceed with a compensation or

assistance plan, it would clearly require considerable financial resources. It

would be beyond the fiscal capacity of this Province to proceed alone on such a

recommendation. However, since we have a national blood system, it is imperative

that this issue be reviewed by federal, provincial and territorial ministers on

a collaborative basis.

Mr. Speaker, as Ministers of Health, we have to review this

very important issue as quickly and collectively as we can. Accordingly, I will

be seeking an early meeting with my federal, provincial and territorial

colleagues to review this recommendation, in particular, as well as to establish

a process to review the recommendations in general.

Mr. Speaker, as ministers, we share a common concern for the

people adversely affected by the blood system. As well, we share a common

objective to maintain and protect the health of Canadians by working together in

this partnership.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a

copy of her statement today and would like to say, with the minister, that we

feel the same sorrow that she does for people who have been affected by the

tainted blood, for the families and for the victims who have lost their lives

because of this. We can only hope and can only urge the minister that she and

her counterparts would certainly meet as soon as possible to see what can be

done in the way of compensation to some of the families affected. As well, Mr.

Speaker, we would want to also thank the many people, especially those in

Newfoundland and Labrador, who so freely over the last number of years have

given the gift of life in giving their blood; and I sincerely, on behalf of our

party, want to thank those people today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, I share the sorrow and regret of what has happened

to the individuals who suffer from HIV and from Hepatitis B as a result of the

failure of the blood system. I regret that the minister's statement does not

amount to an apology to the people who are affected and that she has not taken

that, with respect to compensation, all she has said is she wants to review the

recommendation. I would like to hear a commitment to a compensation program and

the working out of the details of that with the Federal Government.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the government

ensure that the people who have already been forced to sign a no suit clause in

order to get compensation before, be compensated at the same level as others,

and ask the government, as well, to consider the Recommendations 46 to 50 of the

Krever Commission Report which claims -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - the loss of federal health transfers to the

provinces for not being able to provide sufficient resource for public health

service in the Province, that they look at that recommendation and ask the

Federal Government to restore those.

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

and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 3, 1997, government announced the construction of

the Trans-Labrador Highway following the successful completion of negotiations

between the Province and Ottawa on the transfer of responsibility for the

Labrador coastal boat service from the Federal to the Provincial Government.

Today, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House

that this government will be setting up a dedicated fund for the highway and the

maintenance of ferry services in Labrador. This fund, to be known as the

Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, will allow all monies for the project

to be separate and apart from other general government revenues.

This is an extraordinary action by government. Usually, in

such cases, government would simply enter the funding, in this case a total of

approximately $353 million, into general revenue. Instead, this money will be

focused on a sole purpose: the development of a modern transportation

infrastructure for the people of Labrador.

The first two phases of the Trans-Labrador Highway

construction will be completed over the next six years. Phase 1 will see the

completion of the road between Happy Valley - Goose Bay and Labrador West, and

will include environmental assessment, planning and engineering for Phase 2. Mr.

Speaker, this work has already begun. This past summer we have spent almost $20

million to make huge improvements to the existing road from Happy Valley - Goose

Bay to Labrador West.

Phase 2 will include the construction of the link from

Cartwright to Red Bay. Construction will begin as soon as the design work and

environmental process are completed, as early as 1998. Environmental assessment,

planning and engineering for the final phase will begin during this period.

The Trans-Labrador Highway, is one of several new initiatives

we have taken since February 1996 to meet the real needs of the people of

Labrador. These include: a new Labrador Regional Hospital located in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay; new schools in Nain, Rigolet, and Hopedale; a sales tax rebate

for housing construction in Labrador; a reduction in tobacco tax rate for

southern Labrador and Labrador West; the reinstatement of the Labrador Air

Subsidy, of particular benefit to the South Coast.

This government agrees with the people of Labrador when they

say that the Trans-Labrador Highway, along with the land claims settlement, is

the key to opening up Labrador's tremendous economic potential.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bill was introduced as Bill 30. It is far from new news

- announced on April 3. More than one year ago in the House a statement was

delivered that there would be a paved highway through Labrador in ten years. I

asked at the time how much money were we getting from Ottawa, and the current

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would not say. She said: It is

not that I do not know, it is that I will not say. Because the cost of doing it

was in the hundreds of millions.

The $353 million, with a $12 million a year subsidy for the

Labrador ferry service that will need to be continued, with $60 million to do

the portion from Churchill to Goose Bay, an estimated minimum of $130 million,

that is to put a gravel road from Cartwright to Red Bay, there is going to be an

opening from Goose Bay to Cartwright with no money allowed to do that

section of

the highway. We have a ferry service we have to maintain, we are hundreds of

millions of dollars short. We sold out a ferry service to Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - with no money to complete the job. I

think it is an atrocity

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

MR. SULLIVAN: It is disgraceful that that happened, and I

said to the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - said to the minister at the time: Do not

sell us short like you did -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - on so many other projects before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Does the hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair

have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, first of all, that I am pleased the government

is going to put this fund into a separate revenue for Labrador to see this

development, I guess, proceed. I was really concerned when I thought it was

going to be part of Consolidated Revenue. Because we want to ensure that every

cent of this money, no matter how it is spent, that it is spent for the benefit

of the people in my district, and all the people in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We have been for years and years with an

inadequate transportation system throughout my district and all across Labrador,

and whether it is $340 million in a highway today or $600 million, we need it,

and we need now. We cannot wait and see this project delayed any longer, Sir.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member requesting leave?

By leave.

MS JONES: We want to see this project proceed as soon as

possible. We cannot be held up by petty details. And right now I want to say

that in the last couple of years it has been tremendously difficult for us with

the marine service sector. We need to have that service improved, and every

dollar that is there, whether it be revenues, whether it be interest, whether it

be whatever, we are going to ensure that it is spent, and it is spent for the

benefit of the people in Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the

Minister of Health.

The Krever Report urged the Federal and Provincial

Governments to devise no-fault compensation for victims so they would not be put

through the court system. The federal minister, Allan Rock, said he has to meet

with his provincial counterparts. I ask the minister if her department and the

government support a compensation program for those who contracted hepatitis C

through tainted blood.

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think in my Ministerial Statement earlier I did say that I

would be urging a meeting with my colleagues in the new year to address the

issue of compensation. I also said that this Province alone could not handle the

financial responsibility; that is one of the reasons why we are part of a

national health care system, and these very issues will be important to all of

us, including all of the other smaller provinces which will have the very same

issues.

I will certainly take the lead to see that this particular

component and recommendation is dealt with as quickly as possible.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not something that was just thrust upon us yesterday.

We knew for some time what has been happening. Since 1993, the Krever Inquiry

has been going on, and this government has dragged its feet and was the last

Province to agree to compensation for victims and families of those who

contracted HIV from tainted blood. Nova Scotia took the lead, and we were the

last to recognize the victims through compensation.

I ask the minister: Would she give a commitment that this

government will act immediately and do our part - we do not expect you to do it

for all of Canada, but do our part at least - to compensate hepatitis C victims,

and the spouses and children of those who have died from AIDS, and not wait for

the Federal Government to act.

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very serious and important issue, and I think it is

important for the people of the Province as well as the public to know generally

that we, as government leaders, have not been waiting for the Krever Inquiry. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, we have put in place a very solid component and the ability

to put in place a national blood agency, that is moving along very well and we

are hoping to have it up and running within the next couple of months.

So, we have not been sitting back waiting because we know it

is too important. It is too important to the people that are infected, Mr.

Speaker, and it is too important to the rest of us as Canadians that have to

depend on a national blood agency.

We did provide a compensation package for HIV victims and

their families and we will certainly support whatever initiative that is put

forward with my colleagues, as part of a national publicly-funded health care

system.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All the minister expresses here is sorrow and regret and

certainly, I welcome that, because we all feel sorrow and regret. She says it is

not prudent to enter into detailed discussions - we do not want detailed

discussions, we just want - as Justice Krever said, `It is not justified for

government to have already compensated AIDS victims, you continue to balk at

compensation for those infected with Hepatitis C.' In fact, he says there is a

moral obligation to consider compensation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought to get to his

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that the Red Cross and the federal and

provincial health departments, according to Justice Krever, failed to act

quickly and were contemptuous of consumers, can the minister tell us today, if

government will met this moral obligation to those people affected?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will say again on behalf

of government and members on this side of the House, that we do offer our

sincere sympathy and regrets to the families involved. It has been a very

difficult time for them. And you can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will well

represent the citizens of this Province in their issues related to Hepatitis C

and in identifying whatever compensation is deemed appropriate, when we meet as

a part of a national blood agency, as a part of a national publicly-funded

health care system. I will give that commitment here today, to the people of the

Province and to the House.

I do believe there are moral issues involved here, Mr.

Speaker. People's lives are involved, and I will do my very best there, as I am

doing in this Province today, to represent the views and the issues of all,

including those, and the families affected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Red Cross and the federal health minister have

apologized. The federal health minister said, `The Federal Government accepts

its share of responsibility for past shortcomings in the system.'

I ask the minister: Will she stand in her place today and do

the same?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If my memory serves me correctly, the whole process to screen

for HIV and AIDS was put in place on November 4, 1985. Since that period of

time, a number of things have happened, including the Krever Inquiry, and I have

said today, that I offer my sincere regrets and sympathy and that I will do my

very best to represent the people and the families of this Province as part of a

publicly-funded system. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Province will do its

share, will maintain its responsibility, will do what it has to do as a part of

a system that will look at compensating these victims.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not talking about details. We are not talking about

what the financial compensation is. I just asked the minister simply: Would you

stand and do what the federal minister has done and say you apologize on behalf

of this government and that you will accept responsibility for the shortcomings

in the system that were the responsibility of the provincial Department of

Health? That is all I am asking. Will you do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, in a most eloquent way, in the statement of the

Minister of Health, very sincerely given, has expressed deep regret to those who

have suffered loss of health and loss of life as a result of the mistakes made

in guaranteeing an appropriate screening of blood in this country and in this

Province, and that is an apology from the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to all of the families and all of the individuals who have been

affected, those who have died, those who continue to live in very difficult

circumstances, and that is given without qualification.

Mr. Speaker, as to the question as to whether or not the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will participate in compensation for

those who have been affected, the minister said very clearly the answer is yes.

I would ask the House to recognize that the Minister of

Health of Newfoundland and Labrador today is taking on fully the responsibility

to deal with all of the issues arriving out of the Krever Commission Report. I

would ask the people of this Province to recognize something I would ask the

Leader of the Opposition to recognize. This is a problem that goes back to 1985.

We are not standing in judgement of those who were in office in 1985. We are

accepting our responsibility today. We are saying -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - we want to fill our role in providing

compensation. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, please -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - on this one, avoid politics.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a question of the Premier. He stood, and

I accepted that apology that he gave on behalf of this Province. Because Justice

Krever said the provincial department has a responsibility. They failed to act

quickly and they were contemptuous of consumers. There are certain

responsibilities. Sharing in a process is one thing. I asked him will he do what

the federal minister, Allan Rock, has done, and accept their share of the

responsibility for the shortcomings in the system that were the responsibility

of the provincial Department of Health. That is all I am asking, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are times when the

House is indeed not well served by the lack of a camera that can give full

coverage of all that occurs in this place. This is one of those times. We have

had a Minister of Health make, I believe, a sincere statement on behalf of the

government as an institution, on behalf of the people of the Province, to the

victims who have been affected. This is a terrible tragedy that goes back to

1985, twelve years. The Minister of Health was not the minister at the time,

this government was not the government at the time, but all of that is

irrelevant to those who have died, those who are dying, and those who are

suffering.

We have said, as the government of the day in 1997, we offer

a full apology on behalf of government, and we have said, on behalf of the

taxpayers, we will fully participate in a compensation program. The Leader of

the Opposition ought to acknowledge those words by the Minister of Health in a

generous way, recognizing that there is nothing to be gained, only a small

measure of comfort, for those who have suffered if we avoid politics, at least -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - on this issue, and work together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the hon. the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture. Minister, we, here on this side of the House, have great

concerns with the lies and innuendo being propagated by the IFAW in its scam to

portray Newfoundlanders as barbarians, and tell bare-faced lies to raise public

sympathy against a seal hunt that is being carried out under strict regulations

and in as humane a way as possible.

I know the minister and his colleagues share our concerns.

However, we cannot allow this vicious attack to continue unchallenged. The

minister knows full well that the IFAW anti-sealing campaign is about money, not

protecting an endangered species. Would the minister inform the House what his

government has done up until now to combat those blatant lies and to expose

those anti-sealing con artists?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the first question I would ask

is, how long do I have to answer the question? The second point, you should have

read The Evening Telegram this morning. You should have been at the Delta

Hotel last evening to hear the Premier's response to the IFAW.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we made it quite clear to the

telecasters committee, when they approved those ads originally, our displeasure.

We pointed out the inaccuracies of the ads that were being run in Canada about

the sealing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are also aware of what is

being run on the TV ads down in the United States. The more you keep talking and

mentioning those things, the more the IFAW comes out.

My position, when it comes to a public debate with the IFAW,

is ignore them, because all you are going to do is create a confrontation. They

will come out and put more ads on television and do more. We wrote and we

expressed the position of government. We have clearly told the Telecaster

Communications Committee the position of the Newfoundland sealing industry. We

have told the truth about it. The IFAW came out with their second ads and

repeated more lies. We went back to them again and they came out again and

repeated more lies. We just exposed them for the hypocrites which they really

are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the minister but I am not so sure, minister, we

can sit back and be complacent over this and just take them for granted. If it

works that is wonderful. Minister, while I compliment you on your efforts I am

not sure how effective writing letters to the editor of select magazines and one

or two speaking engagements will be. The IFAW is stepping up their anti-sealing

fund-raising campaign and I believe we have to do something to portray the

enormous benefits that this seal hunt provides. Will the minister commit today

to use whatever media is needed and where it is needed, to tell the truth about

this Newfoundland hunt?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the news media

in Newfoundland has any more space to carry it. I am on every evening, The

Evening Telegram , the radio and every newscaster. I was on CBC National

last evening for about ten minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: How much more? I am going to New Brunswick in

January, I am going to Toronto in January, I am going out to Vancouver talking

about the IFAW!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Now, if you are insisting that we are going

to take $4 million or $5 million of taxpayers money to run adds against IFAW so

they can come out with more adds and we will spend another $4 million or $5

million, I would ask the hon. member to give us the money and I will think about

doing it.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, the sad thing

about it, yes you are trying but you are talking to the converted. I think you

have to take your message much further than that.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is to the Premier of the

Province. Premier, it is common knowledge that the federal Liberals in Ottawa

accepted a large financial political donation from this same group, the IFAW,

who are now trying to destroy a way of life in this Province. I ask the Premier,

if he considers this as an acceptable practise from a party which he is part of

and supports?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the member

that I would not take five cents from the IFAW and I would not advise anybody

else to do it either. I think they are a despicable organization whose only game

is to take people who are misinformed and who are vulnerable and naive and to

get funds for the purpose of funding the activities of the IFAW which have

nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with their own welfare.

But I can tell the member, I know a little bit about the seal hunt because when

the Liberal Party in Ottawa came to power in 1993, the quota for seals stood at

about 55,000 animals and the quota had been there at 55,000 animals under the

Conservative government for nine full years and those shocking Liberals moved

the quota from 55,000 to 255,000 and restored the seal hunt!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the

Premier as well. Premier, I have proof here to show that your party in Ottawa

accepted a $10,000 donation and it is right from the Parliamentary Library in

Canada, whether you want to accept that or not. Mr. Speaker, it is right here

and I will table that document today.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier if he,

himself, the Premier of this Province, has ever accepted a donation from the

IFAW in his own personal political life?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, and I would not advise

any member of this House, nor would I advise any party in Canada to accept funds

from the IFAW.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Can the minister confirm that on Thursday, November 20, a Liberal fund-raiser

was held - basically a cocktail party in Bay Roberts - and $1,000 per person was

paid by local business people to meet the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, the Premier and yourself and, can you confirm that some people

in attendance were quite upset when the Premier did not attend?

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

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: Accept $1,000 for a dinner, a

representative of the poor, the downtrodden in this Province to go out and

charge $1,000 for a meal (inaudible).

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

I call the hon. Member for Bonavista South to order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, yes and no. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Yes, secondly, most of the people there said

I did not charge them enough; they wanted to pay more because they appreciate

the good work that this government is doing for them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a

supplementary.

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

Can the minister tell this hon. House of Assembly, what was

promised to these people to get the ear of the Premier and senior Cabinet

ministers? What was promised to them?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, a

supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can the minister tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador if this is normal in other Liberal districts to charge

$1,000 to citizens to meet the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics since

1985. I have no idea what people do in order to succeed in their planning of

fund-raising. I am quite capable, and the District Association and the

fund-raisers in my district are quite capable of planning fund-raisers and we do

not consult with anybody else to ask what they charge at a particular dinner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Again, I remind the members that this is Question Period; it

is not a period for debate. Members should not interrupt speakers when they are

recognized by the Chair and if members continue to do that then the Chair well

have to take further action.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me

preamble, Mr. Speaker, by saying that our Party is in

favour of industrial development and job creation in harmony with protecting our

environment.

Mr. Speaker, only days ago, the House of Commons debated the

federal government's position with respect to emissions in advance of the Kyoto

Summit in Japan. The federal Cabinet has still not announced publicly what its

position is with respect to emission reduction.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether the provincial

government has had any input into the preparation of the federal government's

position, and if so, what input has the provincial Minister of Environment and

Labour had into their position?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell you that the

Ministers of Energy and Environment from across the nation met in Regina about

three-and-a-half weeks ago to put in place Canada's position, or at least to

have an opportunity for provinces to coordinate their positions with respect to

Canada's position, in Kyoto.

The consensus that emerged from that particular conference

was that Canada ought to return to the 1990 levels for their emission gases in

this country by the year 2010. That gap from 1990 to the year 2010 would equate

to about 103 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. We have all accepted that

is the consensus position; however, we have not handcuffed the country as they

go in. They need to be flexible should they need to go beyond that.

I am very happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland is not

only in compliance with 1990 but we are 11 per cent below the 1990 levels right

now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that information in mind, I wonder, has the provincial

government determined the impact of these reductions on the proposed Argentia

smelter, the Holyrood hydro-generation facility, and any other future emissions

that are to be put out because of development in the Province?

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

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have factored that into

the equation. We have factored in a number of new developments coming on stream.

We believe, and our expert advice tells us, that we will still be well below the

11 per cent target that we currently enjoy, and the position that we currently

enjoy at 1990 levels.

I should also tell you that the Premier has met with the

Prime Minister just a week or so ago to talk about the Newfoundland context, and

I think that he pointed out to the Prime Minister that the last great hydro

project left in North America, the Lower Churchill, that 3,200 megawatts of

clean, efficient electricity, could add to Canada's reduction as much as 20 per

cent. So Newfoundland and Labrador not only contributes by being itself well

below the 1990 levels, but we also can make a significant contribution to the

country's problem as a whole by bringing that great project on stream and

reducing the total output by 20 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will narrow the

focus of my questions to the Avalon Peninsula.

With the hydro facility in Holyrood, the oil refinery at Come

By Chance, as well as other sources of emissions on the Avalon Peninsula - the

proposed Argentia smelter - we see a need to put in place efforts to control the

level of emissions on the Avalon Peninsula.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Labour: Will he put in

place legislation to ensure that the smelter in Argentia will be built with the

highest possible standard of emission control available on the market today?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the new compliance agreement that we are putting in

place with the North Atlantic Refinery at Come By Chance, they plan to reduce

their emissions by 14,000 tons as a result of a capital investment of $4.6

million into the emissions; and with the new refinery that is coming into

Argentia, the proposed emissions is in the range of between 5,000 and 7,000

tons. So even with Argentia on tomorrow, we are still below 6,000 tons at what

we are doing today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: It is a nice answer, Mr. Speaker, but it

did not answer the question.

I ask the minister: Will he put in place for the Argentia

smelter, legislation to ensure that the highest possible available technology is

used to control the emissions? Furthermore, will the minister put in place

legislation to ensure that at regular intervals these facilities upgrade their

technology to keep with acceptable levels of emissions at that time?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is already known that the new refinery that is to be built

at Argentia will have the latest in technology, in fact, that is in the world

right now; and we will make sure that we will do whatever we can, with the new

environment act that we are bringing in the spring, to ensure that these people

live within that particular sphere of emissions.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for

the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

The recent Gosse Gilroy Report on Services for Adults with

Developmental Disabilities concluded that the prevocational programs provided at

the Vera Perlin Centre do not usually lead to employment. Therefore, they say,

the Centre is not working and its approach should be rejected.

Will the minister today distance herself from that

recommendation and acknowledge publicly that the Centre provides excellent

services for developmentally delayed adults, allowing them to pursue goals and

develop life skills in an enjoyable and rewarding social setting - particularly

being as how on September 24, 1997, in a news release she said, and I quote: We

want to ensure we have effective services in place that meet the needs of all

individuals who require supports to live and work in the community?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I will not distance the department or myself from the

Goss Gilroy report. That report was initiated by the department to undertake a

complete review of all of the employment-related services for people with

disabilities in the area. It was completed in consultation with all of the

stakeholders. It was received back from the consultants to the department a

number of months ago. Upon receipt of the report, we have met with all of the

stakeholders involved and, in fact, have put in place a steering committee now

to act on implementing the report.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: The authors of the Goss Gilroy report

clearly have a strong bias against day programs, a strong bias in favour of

job-oriented programs for adults with developmental disabilities. Will the

minister admit that some such adults are actually better served and happier in

day programs like those offered by the Vera Perlin Centre? Will she reject the

notion that all adults must be squeezed into the same mould we use to define

success in the mainstream, namely, employability?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the whole thrust of the Goss

Gilroy report was to try to look at the whole range and mixture of services that

are available to adults with developmental delay in this area, and to try to

rationalize and find the best combination of services to suit the needs of these

people.

All of the people were consulted; all of the stakeholders

involved were consulted in the development of this report. I would have to say

that all of the stakeholders involved have been very co-operative in also

working together now on implementing the results of this report. The thrust,

which is thoroughly agreed on by the Vera Perlin Centre and by all of the other

stakeholders, is that we need to support people towards employment, towards

maximum development of their abilities. The report provides many recommendations

that will help us rationalize our services in this area to accommodate that, and

I am very pleased with the progress the group is making.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, as you may remember, the

Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance was struck on March 28,

1996, to continue and expand upon the work done by the predecessor committee

chaired by the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

The committee has held many meetings and public hearings and

has done a great deal of work on the report to date. However, we do not feel

that we can met the deadline of November 30 and, at the same time, do justice to

the subject matter referred to us.

We therefore ask the hon. House to extend the reporting

deadline to March 31, 1998 in order to ensure that the subject is properly dealt

with.

The committee also requests that the evidence heard and the

information gathered by the Select Committee on No-Fault Insurance of the 42nd

General Assembly be referred to the present Select Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table, today, six copies of Order in Council 97-728, which

was issued on November 26, 1997 to meet the requirements of

Section 26(4) of the

Financial Administration Act. This Order in Council authorizes the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation to call and award tenders for the

construction of highway projects totalling $74.5 million in the 1998-1999 fiscal

year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 32 of the Auditor

General's Act, I hereby table the auditor's report and financial information of

the office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Chairman of the

Select Committee on Property and Casualty Insurance present a report. I think,

in order to give effect to his request, that we shall extend the report deadline

to March 31, 1998. It may be necessary to move a motion to accept the report. I

ask leave of the House to move that motion now and have it put.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, give leave

to put the motion as requested by the Government House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

Motion carried.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow present the following

private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador agricultural industry

comprises 720 farm units with assets whose capital value is in excess of $176

million and with annual cash receipts of more than $71 million and is of

critical importance to our Province and to the many people and communities who

depend on it; and

WHEREAS moose in this Province whose population is regulated

and whose numbers are protected under provincial law and now exceed 200,000

animals, have done damage to many farms in the Province, serious enough to

threaten the annual harvest and integrity of these farms; and

WHEREAS the provincial wildlife and inland fisheries industry

is estimated to contribute over $200 million annually to the Province's economy

and 30,000 moose licenses return approximately 1.5 million a year, to the

provincial Treasury; and

WHEREAS it is reasonable and appropriate that farmers be

compensated by the Provincial Government for losses they incur as a result of

the actions of moose, whose numbers are protected by the Provincial Government;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the

Provincial Government to consider immediately implementing a program whereby the

Provincial Government will compensate farmers for losses they incur as a result

of damage done to their farms and crops by moose.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to debate the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS many people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador rely

on air travel; and

WHEREAS airline fares are exorbitant and continuing to rise

dramatically, driving air travel out of the reach of the ordinary citizen, high

care, it creates another financial challenge to post-secondary students and has

a direct negative impact to our tourism growth potential;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House recommend that

of the airline industry with particular focus on large geographic, sparsely

populated regions of our country such as Newfoundland and Labrador, and

recommend public policy that seeks to reduce the financial burden being placed

on our flying public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that on tomorrow I will ask leave to introduce

the following Private Member's Resolution:

WHEREAS the primary focus of Marine Atlantic's activities

today is the provision of the Gulf Ferry Service between Port aux Basques and

North Sydney; and

WHEREAS the community of Channel, Port aux Basques, has acted

as the gateway to and from the Island of Newfoundland for years; and

WHEREAS the closure of the railway and the shift to

containers has had a dramatic effect on the economy of the Port aux Basques

area; and

WHEREAS the management of Marine Atlantic is considering the

transfer of their headquarters to a location other than Moncton;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly support

the request of the town and people of Channel, Port aux Basques, that the

headquarters for Marine Atlantic be located in Channel, Port aux Basques; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly object to

anything less than the headquarters for Channel, Port aux Basques, given that

the management of Marine Atlantic have an aversion to relocating their offices

and themselves to rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: I think it is fair game to say that the

government of the day on this side is already on record as supporting that

Private Member's Resolution. The hon. gentleman -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now on Notice of Motion. Is the hon. member making a

notice?

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

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: I ask the hon. gentleman for leave to put the

motion right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand the hon. member is asking leave, is that it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the hon. member is asking leave to put

a motion. Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we on this side agree

that if the government wishes to put that motion today to reinforce the matter

which I just raised in the House, we will agree to put the motion when we come

to the Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we will gladly put the motion

without debate as soon as we get the Orders of the Day.

Petitions

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have yet another petition on the housing issue, and the

prayer of the petition reads:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

petition the House of Assembly regarding the rate increase at Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation on a sliding scale from 25 per cent to 30 per cent.

We are opposed to this increase because of the hardships that may be endured by

tenants, and we therefore ask that this decision be reconsidered.

Mr. Speaker, the past couple of times I have stood in my

place I have said that the government has already announced that they are going

to reconsider this, and I have said that I was happy with that decision and that

the tenants eagerly await the outcome of the revision of this decision.

A couple of days ago the minister raised in this House a

couple of examples and said that a single parent with two children, making

$12,000, should be in housing - a parent who likely works at one of the malls as

a counter clerk or whatever. Mr. Speaker, that goes to show right there, just

this argument that a single parent making $12,000 would probably be better off

on social assistance anyhow.

Mr. Speaker I faxed over to the minister an example, a true

example of a family of two parents and three children where they make in excess

of $20,000 and for the record, Mr. Speaker, I worked out the calculations to

show that this family would actually be better off on social assistance should

their rent be increased to 30 per cent of gross income. So there is a need for

this and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister and his department will indeed,

review as they said they will review, their decision to increase their rent and

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that once they review this decision that they will rescind

it, at least in certain cases.

I agree that a family making an enormous amount of money

taking up a housing unit is probably taking it away from somebody more in need

but, Mr. Speaker, a family of two parents with three children making just in

excess of $20,000, to have their rent increased from 25 per cent, to 30 per cent

is not only unfair and unjust but it is immoral. So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud and

happy to represent and speak to this petition on behalf of the people who have

signed it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise for just a second to speak to the petition put

forward by my colleague from St. John's South, and although the minister

involved is not available at the moment, we want to again make representation on

behalf of the people who are in housing provided by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation that the rate of increase is just too much in one

move.

Going from 25 per cent to 30 per cent is too much and too

fast, so the petitioners are asking that the government and the minister

reconsider their proposal to make these increases at this time when there are

wage freezes that affect all of them, and when all these people regardless of

what their income level might be, if they qualify to live in housing provided by

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, it is inappropriate, when all of them are

trying to cope with wage freezes and are on fixed incomes to have their rents

increased by as much as 5 per cent. We think it is inappropriate and we are

asking the government and the minister to be reasonable and be fair and to

cancel the proposed rent increases that he has talked about in the last while.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a

petition.

MR. CANNING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present

this petition to the House of Assembly. I will read the prayer into the record:

WHEREAS, we the undersigned as residents of the electoral

District of Labrador West and citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, are

extremely concerned for the future for our local, educational standards; and

WHEREAS we feel the current Labrador School Board has proved

by the deficit it has incurred that it is unable to efficiently manage the huge

geographic area of Labrador. We feel a smaller, more efficient governing

structure will be more beneficial to the future of our education system in

Labrador West;

THEREFORE the undersigned demand that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador accept our express wish to establish a new school

board for the governance of all schools located in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a pretty big issue for the people

in Labrador West. There is a strong culture of education that permeates in

Labrador West. Labrador West I believe has some of the highest numbers of

students who enrol in post-secondary education straight out of high school.

There is considerable funding from the mining sector that goes into the school

board and the school system in Labrador West; among other things providing

benefits to teachers, providing opportunities to the classroom. There is

considerable benefit also that is derived from the rental of properties owned by

the Labrador School Board in Labrador West.

There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed by

the parents who feel they have lost a fair amount of the control they used to

have, a fair amount of the input they used to have in the classrooms for their

children.

Mr. Speaker, I met with this particular group who brought

this petition around. This petition has in excess of 5,000 names. It represents

about 81 per cent of the electorate in Labrador West. I met with them and

discussed their frustrations and their difficulties. In fact, the minister and I

went in and met with them. We went around to each school and met with the Vice

Principal and Principal of each school. We met with the President of the NLTA.

We met with the Labrador West contingent of the Labrador School Board and the

parents' committee that brought these concerns about. In fact, I had even met

with the school board to discuss these very issues this spring because I sensed

the level of frustration that was being generated in Labrador West.

The minister and I went back to Labrador West after that

first initial meeting and met with a working group of the parents' committee to

discuss a new model for the governance of schools in Labrador West and to give

it a name, it was the Labrador West School Board Authority or the Labrador West

Standing Committee that would be constituted of the eight members of the

Labrador West School Board along with the - for instance, the student council

chair is for each school that would have an inherent role and say into how the

decisions will impact their children in their schools.

Subsequent to that meeting I went and met with the entire

group, the parents' committee, because if we had moved in the direction of a

single school board for Labrador West it would have cost in the order and

magnitude of $200,000 to $300,000 without putting one piece of chalk on the

ledge of a classroom. At that last meeting that I had met with the parents they

agreed unanimously, I am told, to look at this model to develop a protocol

agreement to actually put it into the constitution of the Labrador School Board.

Mr. Speaker, that is currently what is being done today. There is a great deal

of discussion from the highest levels of the Department of Education and the

parents' committee to develop this protocol agreement.

I want to express my gratitude, Mr. Speaker, to the parents

who formed this organization, to the parents who took it upon themselves to go

out and sign up the names in this petition. I want to especially note Becky

McLanders and Tom Kent for their leadership and their service to this particular

cause. They have done quite an amount of work on behalf of the children in

Labrador West. I have worked closely with them. I am very pleased that they

continue to work with us to find the best solution possible for our children.

That is what it is all about.

I am a parent as well as a politician for Labrador West and

we are all very concerned about how the Labrador West schools should be managed

through the Labrador School Board. There has to be fundamental change in the

current system in governance by the Labrador School Board as it relates to the

schools in Labrador West. The idea of backing tractor-trailers into schools and

taking lockers off the wall to carry somewhere else is no longer going to

happen. We are going to control the system in Labrador West by local parents and

those local citizens who wish to respond to the call of serving education but I

want to say too that it is very important that we participate with the rest of

our friends, neighbours and fellow citizens in the region of Labrador to

continue the education standards and raise the education standards in the whole

of Labrador to make sure that the children in our region receive the best

education possible. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CANNING: I presented this petition today on behalf of

the citizens of Labrador West.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand today in response to the petition put

forward by the Member for Labrador West. Mr. Speaker, first off I can tell you

that I know the people that he mentioned in the petition, Mr. Kent and so on,

personally from living in Labrador West for a few years. I certainly understand

the concerns that these people have raised with their member here in respect to

the school board and how it reflects on education in their district and in that

particular area. Of course the first thing you have to do is understand the

situation with isolation and the geography of Labrador West to really appreciate

what the people in that district are saying.

I have said this and I will say it again to the people for

Labrador West and indeed, Mr. Speaker, for anybody in the Province who is

watching the educational reform process unfold as it should, we all - when I

say, `we all' the majority of the Province on a referendum and on different

occasions have showed that they do want education reform. I say this to the

Member for Labrador West, that we want education reform, Mr. Speaker, with one

simple thing in mind, that it is for the better, not for the worst, not even to

maintain the status quo, it is to improve. As long as education reform is for

improvements, Mr. Speaker, and for the betterment of the child - and that is

what we keep forgetting so often. But if it means a better education for our

children in school then we all support it. The day that reform comes off track

and things are not happening at the class level, with teachers, with the parents

and with the child and so on, that is the day I don't support it.

So for the people of Labrador West, I support them in their

endeavours, and I think that they raised some very serious and legitimate

concerns. In saying that also, I would like to raise this point today in the

House in response to that very particular petition. Of course, that is my own

district. I'm in a school district which is called District #5, which covers

from Baie Verte to Grand Falls to Burgeo. If I'm not mistaken, it is the biggest

geographical district in the Province, and the biggest overall school district

in the Province. Believe me, we are seeing some very similar, I say to the

Member for Labrador West, concerns being raised by people in my district.

Again I reiterate the point that the reason why all of these

members in this House, and why the whole mess we went through - because it was a

mess, that is how it can be described - in reform was for the betterment of the

child. The day that the child walks into the school and at the end of the day

when he comes home we say that he is now, of course, having a better education

system than before. That was the whole idea for it, that was the premise, the

underpinnings of a changing education system that we went through a lot of pain

to achieve.

In a nutshell, I guess I can say to you, a constituent of

mine wrapped it up by saying this. He doesn't mind going to get a tooth pulled

if he is having a toothache, as long as he knows that after all the pain of

getting the tooth pulled he knows he won't have a toothache afterwards. That is

how he described it to me. In other words, nobody minds the pain, they don't

mind sucking in, they don't mind giving a little bit, they don't mind going

through all the emotional strain and trauma that has gone on with this process,

as long as at the end of the day we can look at our children when they come home

in the evenings and say: Yes, there is a better education system in this

Province. Therefore it is the answer to this Province's economic recovery, which

is in our children who are in school today. They have a better attitude at the

end of the day and they have a better education that they can look to.

I support the Member for Labrador West. Good luck to him, and

also to other districts in the Province which have similar concerns. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked the

Opposition House Leader, the Member for Waterford Valley, if indeed he wanted

leave to put this motion today. Because if it is urgent we could do it today,

and the hon. gentleman, we could have a vote, and I understood him to say yes,

he wanted to ask leave to put this motion today.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the

Government House Leader for permitting us to put this motion forward today. I'm

wondering if we might be able to make a few comments on the motion prior to

doing it. Maybe we could restrict the maximum time and call the vote not later

than, say, 3:30 p.m., giving us about twelve or fifteen minutes.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side would give

permission for the mover to introduce this resolution, and for somebody on this

side - five minutes to introduce the resolution, and five minutes for somebody

on this side to debate it, and a couple of minutes for the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Do we have an agreement on the time limits on the debate

here?

MR. H. HODDER: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Five minutes each.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair would like some direction as to how we should

proceed, what rules we are following under this debate. Is it agreed that we

have five minutes each?

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the

Leader of the Opposition (inaudible) two speakers on this side, maybe about five

minutes each, if that is agreeable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: In consultation with the Leader of the

Opposition, what I'm putting forward is that we would have two speakers on each

side, and it be limited to about five minutes each.

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

MR. TULK: I have to confess to the hon. gentleman that I

did not hear - and I would like for people to keep it down a bit - the last part

of his statement. I would like to hear the last part of his statement. He wants

two speakers and what?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: What I had asked for was two speakers and

a limit to about five minutes each.

MR. TULK: You introduce it. Let's go.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, on a point

of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note that the Opposition House Leader, in his concern to

make sure his leader gets a chance to speak, left out the New Democratic Party,

but I certainly would agree to that, provided that I also have an opportunity to

speak to this motion, as well, for five minutes.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side, wanted to put forward this particular

resolution because we believe it represents fundamental fairness towards rural

Newfoundland. We all know that Marine Atlantic is transferring its activities

from Moncton to some other part of Atlantic Canada, and we believe that other

part should be somewhere in Newfoundland.

When we look at Newfoundland, we look at two obvious sites.

We look at the obvious site being Channel - Port aux Basques and we look at the

Argentia area, because these sites are where we have the ferry terminals

located. Some people also look at the St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that we have in this House, from time

to time, to say to groups like Marine Atlantic that they should be locating

where the services are, and in this particular case, we, on this side, are

saying that it makes sense. It is an initiative that we would support, or I

would support, because this is a private member's resolution being put forward,

and that we would support locating the headquarters for Marine Atlantic in

Channel - Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: That is what this motion says here and

that is what I am supporting. I am saying that we have, in this particular case,

to take all the jobs that are now located and being serviced from Moncton and

from all these other areas, and make sure they get placed in Channel - Port aux

Basques. That is what the motion says. It says the headquarters of Marine

Atlantic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to my hon. colleague, the minister

across the way, that the motion is very well structured. It says that the

headquarters for Marine Atlantic be located in Channel - Port aux Basques.

We are saying, as well, to the government that we have to be

proactive, and we have to say to the minister that we believe it makes sense, it

is the logical thing to do, and that we will support the initiatives of the

government to make sure that when the offices are relocated, they are moved to

Channel - Port aux Basques. We are saying that anything that is now in Moncton

should be located to Channel - Port aux Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the

Opposition House Leader for putting this motion forward, and for having such

foresight as an Opposition to piggyback themselves into this issue, to help us

with the cause, and to support us also with the concept that I have put forward

from the beginning, which is that we cannot afford to have a remote headquarters

for Marine Atlantic.

As I have said from the beginning - and to use the example of

the Hope Brook gold mine - the Hope Brook gold mine was established; it had a

headquarters in Corner Brook at the time, and that was the way the B.P. SELCO

Company used to run the Hope Brook gold mine. Well, if we look at this, when

Royal Oak Mines took over the operation of the Hope Brook gold mine and changed

the name to Royal Oak Mines, they decided that they could not afford, with

private sector funds, to put the headquarters anywhere other than on the mine

site. Therefore, with Marine Atlantic, we feel that public sector funds should

not be used to support a remote location for Marine Atlantic headquarters; that

includes St. John's. We know they have certain functions that will have to be

performed in St. John's, but the majority of functions should be performed

nowhere but in Port aux Basques, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Well, the fact of the matter is, looking at

this motion and seeing it firmly, I really want to thank the hon. member for

agreeing to the transfer of jobs from, I would think, his district or close to

his district, to the community of Port aux Basques in the district of Burgeo and

LaPoile. It is but a gift from the hon. member to be so magnanimous to offer

forth the jobs. It is really nice to see it going to this extent, Mr. Speaker.

As it says in the motion, "Whereas the management of Marine Atlantic is

considering the transfer of their headquarters to a location other than

Moncton." Well, that location, Mr. Speaker, I would hope will be Port aux

Basques. I want all hon. members to realize the people of the Southwest Coast

thank the hon. House for its support in this initiative. Other places in the

Province need some of this work, but really, the best and the only place to put

it is in Channel - Port aux Basques. I maintained that position all along and

thank the Opposition for getting involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome this motion, because it is a motion that focuses on

the role that Marine Atlantic has played in the Province of Newfoundland, or

more often than not, not played. I know, for many, many years the employees of

the Newfoundland Dockyard have always had charged to any bid that they put on

the ship, a proportion of the headquarters operations overhead in Moncton.

Though when they bid on a ship, included in the cost of the bid was the cost of

having all these offices and management staff, personnel, public relations and

government relations up in Moncton as part of the cost of fixing the ship in St.

John's Harbour. Mr. Speaker, now that the Federal Government has gutted Marine

Atlantic and gotten out of the services they provide and this operation is being

moved - and I do not support any of this gutting, Mr. Speaker - I did not

support it with the Newfoundland Dockyard. I wish there were the same unanimity

in this House about the Newfoundland Dockyard as there is about this motion. I

must say, it is very magnanimous for the member. I know it is difficult for him

to support a resolution that would see the movement of managerial people from

his district to Port aux Basques.

MR. J. BYRNE: What a man!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: And if that is not the intent of the motion,

perhaps we should amend it to make sure that headquarters includes all the

management personnel. We do not want Marine Atlantic to have a phoney

headquarters in Port aux Basques and have the President hanging around Mount

Pearl!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: If there is going to be a headquarters office

in Port aux Basques, let the management personnel be stationed in Port aux

Basques.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should amend the

first resolve after the word "headquarters" to add "and all management personnel

of" instead of the word "for". After the word "headquarters" in the first

resolve, add, instead of the word "for" the words, "and all management personnel

of" Marine Atlantic.

I would not want, Mr. Speaker, to see some half-hearted

effort - and we know how fancy they are. We know what they did to Via Rail; we

know what they did to the railways. We know how they can shut things down and

fool the people of Newfoundland and Canada. We know how they can pretend to be

doing one thing and really doing something else. So if we are going to be

serious about this, if we really want them to be serious, and ensure that the

operations of Marine Atlantic, that the ferry service on the Gulf and to

Argentia is run from rural Newfoundland, we have to ensure that they actually do

it. I would want to have that amendment there. I do not know if there is a

seconder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Seconded by the member for... If we are going

to do this, it should not be some sort of motion here that someone can weasel

out of after the motion is passed. I think we recognize that government offices,

particularly offices of this nature, are very important to a community. It is

also very important, Mr. Speaker, that the people using that service have access

to the management. If there is a problem with the Gulf service, if someone gets

off the ferry in Port aux Basques and has a complaint to make, he should be able

to go to the top, and not have to wait to go somewhere else to deal with the

management and operations of Marine Atlantic.

I support that motion, with that amendment, just for greater

certainty. I support the motion and thank the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who

seconded the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please! Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. member, I would ask the Member

for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, has there been a copy of the amendment presented

to the Table?

MR. HARRIS: I will have that presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair would ask hon. members to

vote on the amendment, I would like for it to be presented to the Chair through

the Table.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the public record show

that today we have had an interesting development in the House. It is one that I

think is encouraging, and one that I applaud. Both the Member for Waterford

Valley, who is an urban member in this House, and the Leader of the NDP, who is

also an urban member in the House, both from the St. John's and Mount Pearl

area, have proposed, as a measure of spreading the opportunity for employment

around the Province, that jobs be moved from St. John's and Mount Pearl out to

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know there are some in the

riding of the Member for Waterford Valley who would question what the member is

doing. I say to those who would question him, they should see rather his greater

vision for the whole of the Province. I know there are some who would question

the approach of the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi,

who has also proposed that every last management position from Marine Atlantic

be located to Port aux Basques, and would question him as well. I know the

member, and I applaud his much broader vision as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what an extraordinary and

fortuitous day for Newfoundland and Labrador, when the government is being urged

to move jobs out of Confederation Building, out of St. John's, out of Mount

Pearl, and into rural Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is fortuitous indeed,

and timely, as just Monday of this week I, and the most articulate and the most

eloquent and the most passionate and the most persuasive Member for Burgeo &

LaPoile met the Port aux Basques mayor and town council on this very subject.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, Monday past -

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker.

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

of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear on

what the resolution has said. I have heard the amendment as proposed by the

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, and I will deal with that when it is tabled

before me and I have a look at it. It is my understanding that the resolution

put forward by the Member for Waterford Valley is clear. It says clearly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Kilbride will not skate - I

am listening to (inaudible).

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

The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: On this resolution, the Member for

Kilbride's voice will be heard; I do not need to skate around this, I say to the

Minister of Mines and Energy.

But the resolution clearly calls for that the jobs that are

being presently considered to be moved from Moncton, but it seems to me: Be It

Further Resolved -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to read it for you?

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I can read it for you if you like, I say to

the Minister of Mines and Energy, but I just want to be clear. We will have a

chance to vote on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, we will have a chance to vote on

the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi's amendment and what the Premier has

indicated is certainly not the case in this resolution.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was

interrupted - and I must say, the fundamental difference between the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and the members of the Conservative Party, it appears,

is that when the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi stands and says it is in

the interest of the Province to see jobs elsewhere than in the City of St.

John's, he stands by his word.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment is not even dry on the paper and

already Members of the Progressive Conservative Party are standing up and saying

that when it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, wink, wink, nod, nod,

they were only kidding.

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

of order.

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

Just because the Premier says it is so, Mr. Speaker, does not

actually make it so.

I want to contend that what the Premier has said here today

on this issue is not correct. If the Premier would keep his powder dry just for

a minute, put his rhetoric in his back pocket, we will wait and see the

amendment and he will see how members on this side of the House vote. Otherwise,

he should confine himself to the facts of the matter and not to what his

delusionary comments are what he believes them to be, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member has taken

advantage of the opportunity to call a point of order to further engage in

debate.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have been thrice

interrupted in my attempt to seize upon this historic moment when members on the

other side are compelling the government to take this opportunity, to put into

practice this principle of moving the abundance, they say, of jobs in the cities

of St. John's and Mount Pearl out to solve the unemployment problems of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the member's resolution.

The member, I know, is the most informed member, has a great knowledge of Port

aux Basques, great understanding of the Marine Atlantic service, and the member

knows that the Marine Atlantic service between PEI and New Brunswick is no more.

There is now a big bridge - go on a holiday, take a look. There is no more

Marine service. Those jobs are gone, but the service between Digby and St. John

is no more, that service is gone. The service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor,

Mr. Speaker, is gone. That service is gone. That leaves Marine Atlantic

primarily as a business that services the traffic between North Sydney and

Newfoundland, it is a Newfoundland and Labrador-based service and if you say you

want the jobs and headquarters in Port aux Basques, that means all the jobs and

the headquarters in Port aux Basques, including the jobs that are in the city of

St. John's and in the member's own riding.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members opposite,

that is precisely what the government means. That is what we said to the Town

Council of Port aux Basques on Monday, that is why four members of this

government, four ministers who went to the Federation of Municipalities - five,

said, when asked would we support Port aux Basques? The answer was four-square

and we supported the resolution of the Federation of Municipalities.

I say to the Member for Waterford Valley and I say to the

Member in particular for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, who I think has been

absolutely straight on this one - but I say to the Member for Waterford Valley,

we take his resolution, we look forward to any other clarifications that his

party can offer, and we have already communicated to Marine Atlantic and to the

Federal Government that we want to see the largest presence possible. They can

move half the federal Department of Transport down to Port aux Basques. In fact,

leave one. We have gone further, we have said that we are going to try to move

jobs out of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to Port aux

Basques, in particular, our own Marine Reservation Service. We are committed to

rebuilding the economy of Port aux Basques, and I say to the members opposite, I

hope you stay for the vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and I hope all members on the government side are here

for the vote, too, I would say.

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite clear -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It has been quite clear for some time that

I have been raising those concerns. Back in June of this year, I met with

officials from Marine Atlantic. Later on in the summer, Mr. Speaker, I met with

the CEO, Rod Morrison of Marine Atlantic, the President of Marine Atlantic. I

met on two occasions with them. I have done a news release to that effect. I met

with the committee in Port aux Basques.

The Premier mentioned, just on Monday of this week, after

months and months and months I have been calling for, number one - and the

reason why - and the government, in fact, have been causing major problems here

in this transfer. I will outline them briefly.

The ferry service that was running - Marine Atlantic service

- from Yarmouth to Bar Harbor, from Digby to Saint John, New Brunswick and from

Borden to Cape Tormentine, those three basic services were under Marine Atlantic

with a large headquarters in Moncton.

I said in no uncertain terms to members of Marine Atlantic,

in a meeting in June and with Rod Morrison later in the summer - the day the

Matthew actually arrived in Port aux Basques, I was there - and I indicated that

it is not acceptable that they put four people in Port aux Basques at a time, in

reservations. They have nine in North Sydney and the committee felt it should be

more of a balance. And I said, no, it is not good enough. I said, it is not good

enough until every reservation agent and people in Port aux Basques are in Port

aux Basques and not in North Sydney. I said: because when a 1-800 number calls

goes for a booking at Marine Atlantic, if the line is busy the call gets

forwarded to North Sydney. If you have nine lines in North Sydney and four in

Port aux Basques, the people in Port aux Basques are getting all the work, they

are showing all the calls they are getting in Port aux Basques because they are

call-forwarded to North Sydney. In other words, the numbers do not reflect the

origin of calls and a commitment to it. I said it is wrong. Every single job in

Moncton, every job in North Sydney in reservations should be in Port aux

Basques. And I said, every job in North Sydney that is not -

MR. TULK: What about the ones for St. John's?

MR. SULLIVAN: I have indicated it. You should be

listening and I will not repeat it. I will get to that in a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter, it

is a serious resolution. We do not want to misunderstand the Leader of the

Opposition, so I ask him, where should the jobs in St. John's go?

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

speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking to

something - it is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have been fighting this cause for several

months and I am not going to be bullied by the Premier into answering any

particular questions. I will answer every question. I have told the people in

Port aux Basques, I have said in news releases, Premier, and you should read

them, where I stand on this issue, and if you do not read it and keep up to date

on what is happening, I am not even going to give you the opportunity of hearing

me repeat again what I said before - to waste time here in the House on silly

points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

is implying that he sends me press releases and that I do not read his press

releases when I receive them. I am always pleased to read his press releases,

but I have him in the flesh and blood right across from me. Where does he stand

on the jobs from Marine Atlantic in St. John's? Should they move to Port aux

Basques or not, yes or no? He should answer the question. You are going to send

this Hansard down to Port aux Basques, and they want an answer, too.

MR. TULK: We are going to get it when you vote.

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

standing to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

AN HON. MEMBER: No point of order, as usual.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier is engaging further in

debate. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I stand in this House on

several occasions and I start giving exactly where I am on every issue, to be

interrupted by the Premier of this Province with utter nonsense here - I do not

intend to continue with that nonsense anymore and I conclude debate on this

resolution!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

We are voting on the amendment to the resolution. For the

benefit of all hon. members -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

For the benefit of all hon. members, I will read the

amendment. The amendment by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi:

That the word "for" after the word headquarters in the first

resolve be deleted and replaced by the words "and all management personnel of."

Does everybody understand the amendment?

All in favour of the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Division

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

MR. TULK: I wonder if the hon. gentleman is ready to have

the motion put on the amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, is he ready?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You are not ready?

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh well, if you are not ready we will have to

wait, that is all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Opposition House

Leader is now ready for the vote.

MR. SPEAKER: All members in favour of the amendment,

please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the

hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mr. Flight, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Lush, Mr. Oldford, the

hon. the Minister of Health, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human

Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the

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

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services

and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr.

Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Ms M. Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. G. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr.

Sparrow, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Jack Byrne,

Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Ms

Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All against the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. T. Osborne, Ms S. Osborne.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-seven `ayes', two `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House now ready to vote on the

resolution?

All in favour of the resolution, as amended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All against the resolution as amended? Nay.

Carried.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, by leave. Before we do Division -

we are going to call for Division but we should let the member in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. TULK: We should inform him that the Bar is now down.

MR. SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the hon. member to

enter the House to vote?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All in favour of the resolution as amended?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the vote again by standing vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

All those in favour of the resolution as amended, please

stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the

hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture; Mr. Flight; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Lush; Mr. Oldford; the hon. the Minister of

Health; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment;

the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; Mr. Wiseman;

Mr. Andersen; Mr. Canning; Mr. Smith; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Whelan; Ms Hodder; Mr.

Woodford; Mr. Reid; Ms Thistle; Mr. Sparrow; the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr.

Fitzgerald; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French; Mr. Harris; Ms Jones.

MR. SPEAKER: All against the resolution?

CLERK: Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Osborne.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution carried.

Order, please!

The Orders of the hon. House state that no hon. member is

permitted to be inside the Legislature and not vote. We have the hon. Member for

Virginia Waters not recorded as having voted either for or against, so I will

ask the hon. Member for Virginia Waters whether he wishes to vote for or against

the resolution.

MR. NOEL: For, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, thirty-nine yeas and (inaudible)

nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to, on behalf of the

government, once again thank the Member for Waterford Valley for putting forward

such a succinct resolution today and in seeing that it got quick passage.

Mr. Speaker, I would move Motion No. 2, first reading of Bill

No. 42.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act," carried. (Bill No. 42)

On motion, Bill No. 42 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3, first reading of

Bill No. 43.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 3.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Public Health Act," carried. (Bill No. 43)

On motion, Bill No. 43 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2, Committee of Supply

on Bill 33.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe I

adjourned debate on this matter the other day.

It is a matter that was raised today in a ministerial

statement. I know the government has been using ministerial statements as a

substitute for debate these last few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: My colleague the Member for Baie Verte says

it is to divert questions. All the same, we did have a very interesting question

period today. I'm sorry the Member for Virginia Waters wasn't here today because

I was hoping someone was going to ask him whether he charges the same amount for

his meetings with his constituents as the Member for Port de Grave does. His

unity meetings.

I thought it was kind of interesting, Mr. Chairman, to hear

that the Member for Port de Grave, when he has meetings with his constituents,

he charges them $1,000 to attend. I'm rather surprised he would do that, but

there you have it. The truth was out. He did answer, at least honestly, the

first two questions when he said yes, he did have that meeting, and yes, he did

charge them $1,000 to come. He said no, they weren't disappointed when the

Premier didn't show up. Perhaps the Premier had enough shame to stay away, I

don't know. Perhaps the Premier had enough shame to stay away from the Member

for Port De Grave's meeting with his constituents because he charged them $1,000

a head to attend.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. H. HODDER: I do not believe we have a quorum in the

Chamber at the moment. Would you assure that there is a quorum?

Quorum

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the Clerk to count the -

MR. TULK: There is a Quorum present.

CHAIR: Okay we have a Quorum present.

Order, please!

Before we resume the debate, being Thursday, I have to

announce the questions for the Late Show. The first question: I am dissatisfied

with the answer provided by the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal re: my

question on provincial manufacturers, by the Member for St. John's South.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of

Government Services and Lands re: my question on site septic disposal and water

supply, by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture re: my question combatting IFAW, by the Member for

Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the Opposition House Leader for providing me

with an audience because I have some very important things to say. I am glad the

Premier has come back as well because I want to talk about some important

matters concerning the development of Labrador and concerning the aboriginal

people of this Province.

We have a great interest all of a sudden in ensuring that

development occurred in Labrador and I appreciate that this has been a long time

coming, but it is not well known that for many, many years the aboriginal people

of Labrador have been trying to get the government of Newfoundland to sit down

and talk with them about native land claims, to start that process going and to

For a number of years, the government of Newfoundland, not

this government, the previous government, refused to talk to them, would not

talk to the Innu. They did not want to talk to the Innu. They were punishing

them for taking some electrical metres out of their houses. Refused to talk to

them. Had major consultations on matters to do with Labrador, refused to talk to

the Innu. The previous Government House Leader; the Minister of Justice, got to

Labrador, talked to everybody - consolidation with all the alleged stakeholders

in the issue of low level flying, only one group they would not talk to, the

Inuit. Would not talk to them, would not discuss it with them because they were

breaking the law by taking electrical metres out of the houses. That was the

attitude that the previous government had towards the aboriginal people of

Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, we want to see development of Labrador. We want

to see, I am sure all hon. members want to see and all Newfoundlanders want to

see, development in Labrador. I know the Member for Lake Melville, the Minister

of Government Services and Lands is very sincere when he speaks about that

issue, as is the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and certainly the Member

for Torngat Mountains, as well as the Member for Labrador West.

Everybody is interested in seeing this road and the

development in Labrador except for one thing, Mr. Chairman, we have a very

serious issue that has to be dealt with first, and what we have to ensure is

that development does not take place while riding roughshod over the rights of

the aboriginal people of Labrador. That is what we have to ensure, Mr. Chairman,

and it is all very well for the Premier and the government to start talking

about fast-tracking negotiations on native land claims to ensure that Voisey's

Bay can proceed on Inco's

schedule but, Mr. Chairman, five years ago there was

no Voisey's Bay discovery; four years ago there was no Voisey's Bay discovery;

three years ago, there was no Voisey's Bay discovery and there was no

negotiation with the Innu either, Mr. Chairman, no negotiation with the Innu.

But now, Mr. Chairman, we are in a situation where there has

been a discovery and being starved for employment in this Province as we are,

all of a sudden there is a fast track on negotiations with the Innu and the

Inuit, not yet recognized the existence even of the Metis people in Labrador,

not prepared to recognize their existence and yet, Mr. Chairman, what I fear

most of all about the proceedings in the development of Labrador, in particular

Voisey's Bay, is that this government if it is not very, very, very careful is

going to be creating a racist backlash in this Province, and I say that

seriously, Mr. Chairman. If this government is not careful and make sure that it

does not continue with its present approach, which appears to be to try to set

some stampede on the go to force the native people, the aboriginal people of

Labrador to enter into an agreement on a fast track when the Government of

Newfoundland has ignored them, in effect for nearly fifty years; that if they

cannot reach agreement at their pace, on their terms, there will be fermented in

this Province a racist backlash against the aboriginal people of Labrador,

fermented by the actions of this government and I say this very seriously, Mr.

Chairman, I do not say it lightly.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very, very, very careful

about these issues. We, in this Province, do not have a very good record in the

long run or in the short run when it deals with issues regarding aboriginal

people. I only need to mention the name of the Beothuks to remind people of the

long-term history but in the short-term, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of

serious problems that have yet to be faced and recognized by the government of

this Province and, Mr. Chairman, when you see the Canadian Human Rights

Commission being approached by the Innu of Labrador in 1991, the Canadian Human

failed for fifty years nearly, since Confederation, to recognize the

and having a report prepared by the dean of law of the University of Ontario,

with the complicity of the Province of Newfoundland, failed to ensure that the

Innu of Labrador receive the same rights and services as aboriginals across the

country.

When we see as recently as October of this year, another

report prepared for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, this time by Professor

Noel Lyon, a retired law professor of Queen's University law school, who drew

the same conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Micmac of the Province of

Newfoundland. He concluded that ten of the eleven Micmac communities in

complicity of the Province of Newfoundland. They had their rights to access to

services, their rights to access to their own recognition as human communities.

Fundamental human rights have been ignored. Their rights to self determination

to engage in a process of self government as communities have been ignored since

the time of Confederation. When we see that going on today, Mr. Chairman, we see

a government that is responding, in the case of native land claims in Labrador,

not to the need for justice for aboriginal people but to the need of a

development

schedule for an international mining company, Inco.

So these issues have to be resolved, Mr. Chairman, they have

to be resolved fairly. They have to be resolved as quickly as can be

accommodated, Mr. Chairman, but we must not create an atmosphere in this

Province that says that their rights take second place to the scheduling of Inco

or the scheduling of this government for the development of Labrador. So I place

that caution before the committee while supporting the putting aside of this

money for the Labrador road, in a separate fund outside the consolidated revenue

fund, where hopefully - as the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair indicated

today - it will also, in addition to being safeguarded for the purpose for which

it may also have revenue itself, some interest or interest income from that fund

in a manner consistent with other separated funds held by the Province of

Newfoundland, such as pension funds, et cetera.

So I want to see that, Mr. Chairman, it is an unusual - as

the minister indicated today - it is quite an unusual step to segregate funds in

a particular place for something as important as the transportation development

of Labrador. I support that wholeheartedly but I will caution the government and

caution all hon. members about the concern that I expressed of ensuring that we,

as politicians, move very carefully in ensuring that we do not encourage the

people of this Province in any form of backlash against native people, backlash

against the Aboriginal people, the Innu, the Inuit or the Metis who are entitled

to have their rights addressed and addressed properly.

They have been ignored, Mr. Chairman, for many, many years

and I don't think it can be denied after the reports that have been prepared by

the Canadian Human Rights Commission by Professor Lyon and Professor McAdam or

Dean McAdam, or by other studies that have been done that have shown that the

native people of this Province were treated differently from the time of

Confederation than native people, Aboriginals, first nations, groups across the

country. Mr. Chairman, much of this is in the history books. Much of this is

past. Much of it cannot be revisited and corrected.

Mr. Chairman, we are the legislators of the present. This is

the government of the day. We are the people and this is the government to whom

the people look to for leadership in the area of development, which is very

important but also, in terms of leadership, in regard to the fundamental human

rights of the aboriginal people who resided in Newfoundland and Labrador long

before European settlement, Mr. Chairman, and long before our laws, our culture,

our customs, and our power were imposed on them.

I say that seriously, not to do anything more than to put

that warning on the record, in place. Because I think hon. members here, and

people in this Province, have a tendency to regard the rights of Aboriginals as

obstacles in the way of economic development, rather than as obligations that we

as fellow human beings have to the aboriginal peoples of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I support the motion. I said the other day I would very much

like to see motions of this sort, or any motions from this House, be broadcast

fully to the people of this Province. The Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair recently came back from the Yukon on an important mission, and brought

back the news that in the Yukon the proceedings of the Yukon Assembly are

broadcast live throughout the Yukon.

As I said the other day, why shouldn't the Member for Lake

Melville, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, why should he

not be able to speak directly to the people of his district when he speaks here

in this House? Not through the media, if he happens to get reported or not, not

having to get copies of Hansard and mimeograph them or Xerox them and send them

out by mail to each of his constituents, but that directly they be able to

observe the member speak, and have him speak to them in Labrador when he speaks

in this House, and every member of this House. So that not just those who happen

to say something dramatic enough to get the ear of the media, but that all

members have equal opportunity when they speak in the House to be seen by their

constituents, to be seen by the public of Newfoundland. So what they say is

known, and what they don't say is known as well.

When members speak, whether it be in debate, whether it be in

Question Period, whether it be in the Late Show we are having today at 4:30 p.m.

- what is the point of the Late Show if everybody is gone away, if everybody is

gone home? Are we just here flapping our gums for our own amusement? Or if we

are debating serious matters, and I think the people of this Province have

serious matters that they want debated in this House of Assembly, then they

should in fact have that debate take place in their homes, and see what is going

on, see what efforts are being made in this House of Assembly to improve the

condition of the people of this Province, and see in fact what measures aren't

being taken.

We have an example. We have $350 million being discussed here

for transportation in Labrador. I know it is a very expensive procedure to build

a road through Labrador, to provide for the transportation we would need to the

people of Labrador. I think that the enormity of that number can be put in

perspective when one sees that the Government of Newfoundland recently allocated

a mere $125,000 to help feed the hungry children of this Province in the school

lunch program. When asked about the cost of broadcasting the House of Assembly,

the Government House Leader said: We could broadcast the House of Assembly or we

could feed the hungry children. I will place them first.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You said something, though. Words to that

effect. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

MR. TULK: I said (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: If it comes to that. We are talking about

$350 million here now, so let's not equate one measure about broadcasting the

House in the interest of the democracy and compare that to feeding hungry

children, when the next day we come into the House and see the allocation of

$350 million for road transportation in Labrador. Let's get some perspective on

this, Mr. Chairman.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. the

Government House Leader will reconsider and instruct the Cabinet to go along

with a provision to broadcast this House so that all hon. members can be heard

by their constituents, including the members for Labrador, who, as I said

before, are all good members. They are better than the previous members for

Labrador, all of them. The only thing wrong is that they are not New Democrats.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, we are new.

MR. HARRIS: They are new, but they are not New Democrats.

Mr. Chairman, with those remarks, I will end my remarks on

that debate and say that I support the motion now before the Committee and

commend to hon. members.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I just want to stand for a few minutes on

this motion for the funding for Labrador initiatives. I thought I would add a

few comments to those of my colleague, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi, and make a few points here today, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I make reference to the points today that the

Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair made in respect to Labrador and how the

Labrador people feel.

Since these announcements have been made, and so on, it

certainly has been a positive thing for people who live in Labrador, from

Labrador West right out to the Northern parts of Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I know it firsthand because I have lived in

Labrador West for six years and I got to know the people of Labrador West very

well, from living there, but also from visiting the Labrador Coast: L'Anse au

Clair, L'Anse au Loup and so on. I got to know these people and how they feel

about these particular issues and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, they are

sensitive. These people are very sensitive to these issues and when they hear

any government of any day talk about the initiatives that are going to take

place in Labrador, they are hesitant and also sometimes cautiously optimistic, I

guess is the best way to put it - cautiously optimistic when they hear any

government of any day talking about initiatives.

These people in Labrador are cautiously optimistic, I say to

the Government House Leader, when they hear initiatives put forward for

Labrador, because simply put, we have seen it before from previous governments,

all different stripes and so on.

Labrador has been a place forgotten a lot of times by many

administrations. They have been cautiously optimistic for a long time when they

hear announcements from any government because they know what is said and what

is announced and so on, does not always come true in the end. At the end of the

day they wonder if they will see the paved highway connecting up Labrador and I

am all for that. Labrador has been left out for a long time.

With the amount of taxes that come from throughout Labrador,

and knowing Labrador West very well, Mr. Chairman, employed down there for some

six years, I do know that a lot of people in Labrador West especially, feel that

they contributed, that they have put their fair share into the economy of this

Province over the years and they deserve a fair share. They never look for, by

the way, Mr. Chairman, the double lane highways or anything, they wanted a

decent highway that would connect the vast land of Labrador that has so much

potential.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, what we see is Voisey's Bay come on

stream and big projects like this, so all of a sudden the government is jumping

around to make sure that they please everybody in this whole process and they

say, okay, Labrador, now we remember you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the first thing we have to remember with

respect to the Innu and Inuit in Labrador, they are saying the same thing. What

was the announcement about the other day? It was a peculiar announcement, in my

books. What we have is an announcement about nothing, really, because it was an

announcement in principle on an agreement that may be with the Inuit - the Inuit

were not present at the press conference but the Innu were there, Mr. Chairman,

and the Mtis were not even discussed. So, Mr. Chairman, the announcement the

other day sounded nice -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that it has been ruled in this hon.

House on many occasions that it is unparliamentary for hon. members to seat

themselves in such a way that their backs are to the Chair.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the Chairman, they should have the decency to

face the Chairman, especially when such important debate is going on, that they

pay strict attention to it. Because I have a lot of important things to say

about Labrador on these issues.

Mr. Chairman, the Inuit announcement or press conference,

whatever you want to call it, a few days ago, was nothing less than strange, Mr.

Chairman, a big announcement about nothing, and then we find out that the Innu

show up at the press conference, who were not even involved in the discussions,

and then, the Mtis were not even mentioned. So, Mr. Chairman, there is good

reason why people in Labrador have this query every time they hear an

announcement about Labrador and the great highway that will go through and so

on, or anything about Labrador.

Labrador people, Mr. Chairman - and I tell you, I speak,

knowing people in Labrador very well, they are very - and the word I used

earlier was, cautiously optimistic. They are hopeful that it is going to come

through but, Mr. Chairman, until they see that black-top up there and drive

across it, they are not going to believe it.

So the warning is to the government of the day. It is the old

story of the boy who cried wolf. Too often, Mr. Chairman, Labrador people heard

that but at the end of the day what happens? There is no (inaudible) and for

days and days and years and years, it goes on and on.

The warning to the government, Mr. Chairman, is, this time is

your last chance. That is what I have heard from people in Labrador West to whom

I was talking, people on the coast and so on. The great land of Labrador is

saying: For too many years we have given our share of resources and our people.

Now they are saying: we want it delivered and it has to be delivered in full,

not rhetoric, not smoke and mirrors, not that which at the end of the day will

pan out to be nothing - not a thing with the highway and the expenditures for

the Labrador highway.

I say this today - I have put it on record before and I will

say it again: if this government does not follow through and complete, finish,

complete, terminate, conclude this whole deal with the Trans-Labrador Highway,

they will be out as fast as they can say Labrador. Because the warning is there

and the warning must be heeded, from the residents including the native groups

of Labrador who are saying: This is your last shot, you had better put something

on the table where we will see concrete evidence that you will follow through.

And this time, as we see Voisey's Bay develop over the next months and maybe,

even in a couple of years - it seems that there will be some kind of a delay

there - do not be fooled for one minute. As time flies - yes, time heals a lot

of things; it may heal it but it is not forgotten.

The people of Labrador are still not happy with the final

decisions on the smelter for Voisey's Bay. If you think they are, you are

kidding yourself. It was only just a couple of weeks ago I spoke to a couple of

friends of mine from Labrador West, who still feel that in the pit of their

stomachs; they still feel when they look at Churchill Falls, they look at

Voisey's Bay - and you look at the small number of people in such a vast land

with so much resources -they still feel, in their gut, that Labrador has gotten

the short end of the stick every time. But this time, Mr. Chairman, they are

saying it is the last straw. So this time, I say to the government, you had

better follow through because it is your last chance.

I will adjourn the debate now, and come back to this later as

we go on to the Late Show.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: On motion, report received and adopted,

Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

It being 4:30 p.m., we now move to the adjournment debate.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I presented questions to the

House and basically in recent conversations with members of the Food Processors

Association of Newfoundland, they have informed me that they find it very

difficult to gain access to hospitals and local institutions, such as schools,

government buildings and so on.

MR. FITZGERALD: Why is that?

MR. T. OSBORNE: `Roger', I can tell you exactly why that

is. It is because large national firms, once receiving government