April 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the

House to join with me in wishing happy birthday to a very special Newfoundlander

who is celebrating her 100th birthday today. The lady of whom I speak, Mr.

Speaker, is Dr. Bobbie Robertson, whom I would like to add is also a constituent

of mine.

Dr. Robertson emigrated to Newfoundland in the early 1930s

from Dundee, Scotland. She went to work with the Commission of Government at

that time and was involved in the land settlement schemes in such areas as

Markland, Harricott and Lourdes, to name a few. In 1942, Mr. Speaker, she was

appointed private secretary to the first trade commissioner for Canada appointed

to Newfoundland and held that position until Confederation.

With Confederation and the withdrawal of the Canadian

Mission, she continued the operations of the office by working with numerous

German, Japanese and other industries interested in establishing themselves in

Newfoundland trade. Upon her retirement in 1967, she was the only woman ever

employed in such a position in Canada.

Over the years, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Robertson developed a great

interest in Newfoundland and its history, and following her retirement in 1967

became the office secretary to the Newfoundland Historical Society and has

devoted many years to carrying out the aims and objectives of that organization.

Her contribution to the preservation of Newfoundland history

has been invaluable. Over the years she accumulated hundreds of files about

people, settlements, ships and general knowledge about a province she adopted

and no doubt, fell in love with. Memorial University recognized Mrs. Robertson's

contribution to the Province by conferring upon her an honourary Doctor of Laws

degree in 1984.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government I extend

congratulations to Dr. Robertson on her 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the official opposition, I wish to join with the

remarks of the Member for Waterford - Kenmout, in congratulating Dr. Bobbie

Robertson on her 100th anniversary and in praising her for her tremendous

contribution to our Province since her arrival here from Scotland many years

ago.

I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of being seated on the

stage of the Arts and Culture Centre as Minister of Education when Memorial

University conferred on Bobbie Robertson her honourary Doctor of Laws degree in

1984. That was quite a moving ceremony, and it is appropriate that the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount, the Minister of Social Services, take time here today

on Dr. Robertson's 100th anniversary to remind us of the outstanding

contribution that she has made to public life in Newfoundland over a great

number of years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the members of

this hon. House that I am in receipt -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on Statements by Ministers?

DR. GIBBONS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not called that yet. I was

about to. I was just waiting for that period that we have not classified yet.

Now it is Ministerial Statements.

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you said, I was a little bit anxious. I have a positive

statement.

I wish to inform the members of this hon. House that I am in

receipt of a report from the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on the

referral by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for proposed rates to be charged

Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited and Hydro's rural customers. The

report contains a total of twenty-two recommendations, many of which relate to

technical, accounting or regulatory issues. Of particular interest to members

are the Board's recommendations with respect to electrical rates.

The Board recommended that the rate which Hydro charges

Newfoundland Light and Power Company remain unchanged. The Board also

recommended continuance of the existing policy of having Hydro's rural

customers, connected to the Island's Electrical Grid, pay the same rates as

customers of Newfoundland Light and Power Company and Isolated Rural Customers

(served by diesel or related generation) charged the same rates as all other

customers for the first 700 kilowatt-hours of electrical consumption per month.

It went on to recommend, however, that in Isolated Rural areas, the rates for

electrical consumption in excess of 700 kilowatt-hours per month, rise by 10 per

cent on May 1, 1992. Similarly, the Board recommended that certain

"preferential" rates currently enjoyed by fish plants and selected other

businesses and/or educational institutions operating in Isolated Rural Areas

also have their electrical rates increased effective May 1, 1992 (with these

rates varying from 5 per cent to 15 per cent or more).

Mr. Speaker, while the Public Utilities Board is required to

offer its recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council with respect to

electrical rates, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is not obliged to accept

these recommendations. Indeed the Electrical Power Control Act contemplates that

the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize alternate rates.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that the Lieutenant

Governor in Council has approved the rates recommended by the Public Utilities

Board for Newfoundland Light and Power Company, for the Interconnected Rural

Customers of Hydro and the policy of having Hydro's Isolated Rural Customers

charged the same rates as others for the first 700 kilowatt-hours of electrical

consumption per month. However, the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it

to be in the public interest to vary the rates recommended by the PUB with

respect to other rural rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The Lieutenant Governor in Council has

approved the continuance of the existing rates and the existing manner for

altering these rates charged to Isolated Rural Customers for consumption in

excess of 700 kilowatt-hours per month and the existing preferential rates

charged by Hydro to certain rural customers and the existing manner for changing

these rates. In short, Mr. Speaker, this means that not only will the electrical

rates charged by Hydro to Newfoundland Light and Power and the Interconnected

Rural Customers remain unchanged, but so will the rates charged to Hydro's

Isolated Rural Customers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the

appropriateness of rural electrical rates is of vital importance to all

electrical consumers in our Province. While the PUB offered comment on this

matter during Hydro's recent rate referral, the issue was being discussed within

the context of Hydro's revenue requirements. My colleagues have therefore

decided to ask the PUB to conduct an inquiry on issues relative to the supply of

electricity to isolated rural areas of the Province. The terms of reference for

such a referral by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the PUB are currently

in preparation.

I trust that all members of this Honourable House will greet

this news with pleasure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the hon. minister for an

advance copy of his statement, a statement of which also the so-called

independent consumer advocate called my office before lunch asking for a copy

when I received it. So I thank the minister for the copy.

I reject the statement made across the way that it is the

first time in the history of Newfoundland because I do believe that a previous

Progressive Conservative administration reversed a PUB ruling, as well, so it is

not the first time, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the very fact that we had to have a PUB hearing at all

was due to the fact that the government withdrew a $30 million subsidy to rural

Newfoundland. The very fact that we had to have a hearing at all was due to the

budgetary measures of this government and the withdrawal of the $30 million

subsidy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: And, Mr. Speaker, the day that the Public

Utilities Board report came out, I put out a press release recommending that the

rural increases be rejected by Cabinet. The former Minister of Transportation, a

few days later, was on the radio making a similar recommendation. A week or so

later, the so-called independent consumer advocate was on the radio making a

similar recommendation.

As I indicated, the independent consumer advocate called me

before lunch looking for a copy of the minister's statement. So much for

independence.

The other thing I would like to mention is that there is

going to be a study. So this is a freeze for the time being, but what we are

talking is a reprieve for rural customers, a reprieve until there is an

election, possibly. Maybe that is what they are all about.

But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in the

history of this Province when a Minister of the Crown has to stand in his place

and say, We are pleased to announce we are not going to put the shaft to rural

Newfoundland.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: I have a question for the Minister

responsible for Employment and Labour Relations in the Province.

During this past month, on April 9th, I think, to be

specific, there were some policy changes at Workers' Compensation with respect

to benefits for injured workers. I refer specifically to the change that

occurred with respect to injured nurses, whereby they were previously eligible

for training up to three years - re-training, that is. In view of the fact that

these workers were injured while on duty, is it not the obligation of the board

to continue the re-training to help get these workers back into the work force?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon.

member for his question. An issue which I might point out to the hon. member and

to everybody in the House that the Board at the Workers' Compensation Commission

has been reviewing for some time, is the whole area of rehabilitation, as

covered by Workers' Compensation.

They were hoping, actually, to not make any changes in their

rehabilitation policy until all of the changes that are likely to occur were

announced at the same time. I indicated to them that it is going to take us

another little while to make the total number of changes that are going to be

necessary in the whole area of Workers' Compensation to keep the system viable

for injured workers in the long term. So they decided that because they had done

a major review of rehabilitation needs for all classes of workers, not only

nurses, but all classes of workers, that they now wanted to institute their new

policy as of April, this year, and they have gone ahead and done that.

There have been some changes impacting on nurses, but there

are changes in the whole rehabilitation policy to make sure that the obligation

and the commitment that is required from Workers' Compensation to see that an

injured worker can go back into a workplace with somewhere close to the same

level of earnings is met. It does not necessarily indicate a particular job, it

indicates a level of earnings that they were accessing prior to their injury.

That is the motivating force and the driving force behind the new policy that

was announced and is now in effect at the Workers' Compensation Commission.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister failed

to address the question but I will get on to another one about the same policy.

The minister has failed to inform people of the change that occurred in the ease

back program, whereby injured workers who were engaged in a work search could

find an employer who would give them employment and it would be subsidized at

100 per cent for up to six months. This has now been changed to six weeks, and a

further sliding scale for the weeks that follow after. Why has the minister not

made this information public so that the workers engaged in the program could

inform potential employers of the changes, and are there other changes

implemented in this policy that we do not yet know about?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there may very well be any

number of things that are occurring within the Workers' Compensation Commission

that I, as minister, would not make known to the public. In case the hon. member

doesn't know, the Workers' Compensation Commission operates independent and

separate from the provincial government. It is not part of the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations. We appoint the Board, we administer the Act

under which it is established, and every five years by legislation there is a

statutory review which has been conducted and which we are now considering the

recommendations from. I might point out, as well, for the hon. member and all

hon. members present that when the last review was done prior to that with some

thirty or forty-odd recommendations, practically none of them were acted upon by

the previous administration, and part of this review left over a whole group of

those which are referred again to this administration which will now do

something about them.

In terms of individual programs of the Workers' Compensation

Commission, there is, in fact, absolutely no obligation or commitment and it is

not even normal practice for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to

be going around advising the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, employers

and/or workers, as to what the programs and policies of the Workers'

Compensation Commission are. That is done separately and independently. It is an

independent operation that is arm's length removed from government for very good

reason. They, themselves have their own staff, their own PR group and so on

which advises people through their own mechanisms as to what the programs are,

what the changes are, and when they come into effect.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Let me ask the minister this, then: Is he aware that on

December 6, 1990, the Minister of Labour said in this Legislature, "The last

review committee was appointed in November, 1986. Most of its recommendations

have been implemented by the Commission but a few issues remain outstanding"?

How does the minister square that with what he just said? Now, either that

minister was not telling the truth or this minister is not telling the truth.

Now, what is it? And is the minister able to tell this House if the workers who

are already employed in the ease back program, that is, those who have entered

an agreement with an employer for a six-month period, will be affected by this

latest change or will it only apply to workers after April 9?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to the first part of the question, there is

absolutely no difference in my answer and the previous minister's. I point out

when I answer that question, that any and all of the very serious

recommendations relating to the financial situation of Workers' Compensation and

whether or not it is going to be viable in the long term were never addressed by

the previous administration.

I will point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that what the

previous administration did in response to the last statutory review was typical

of what they have done with many reports and reviews put before them. They

implemented the easy little decisions that could be administratively done in a

day or two. Anything that required major policy decisions or implementation by

changing legislation and making real decisions was not done by the previous

administration.

With respect to changes in terms of the issues being

addressed today, either in rehabilitation or ease back, if you want to check - I

don't know the exact date of implementation. I know the rehabilitation one was

intended to be April 1, this year. If you want to look at what applies as to a

date forward and a date before, I can have the information checked through the

Commission, because, as I indicated before, I do not make it my business and it

is not the concern of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations other

than in a regulatory sense and making sure that the law of the land as it

applies to Workers' Compensation is as it should be, and that the major issues

are being addressed as are now before government as a result of the last

statutory review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I guess there was an answer of

some kind in all of that but I am not sure anyone knew what it was. The minister

has had the Workers' Compensation Board report for several months now. The

Throne Speech has alluded to major changes. When does the minister intend to

present legislation to this House, so we can be made aware of what these changes

are going to be, or is it going to come out bit by bit in policy announcements,

obscure policy announcements that no one knows. When is it going to come to this

Legislature?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

It is our intention, if we can reach final decision-making

-because we are considering the many recommendations now. There are some

forty-five of them. There probably would have been about half of that had it

been dealt with the way it should have been with the last review. But, in fact,

we are now in the final processes of decision-making, and we are not sure if we

can reach the goal or not, but it is certainly our hope to have decisions made

so that we can introduce necessary legislative changes and amendments before

this sitting of the House of Assembly closes. That is our target. If we can

reach that at all, we certainly will.

Now, what the implementation date for the effective changes

will be, is another issue, but in terms of presenting to the Legislature any

changes in legislation that are required, we are hoping to have the draft of

that in this Legislature before this sitting or this session closes for the

spring.

MS. VERGE: You are saying, in the spring, do you mean

this spring?

MR. GRIMES: This spring, yes, that is what I meant.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the

minister if he or his department would have any figures on the extra costs to

municipalities in the Northeast Avalon area, particularly St. John's, Paradise,

the Hogan's Pond area, the increased costs to the municipalities of the

amalgamation and the savings to government departments, his own and the

Department of Highways, because of the amalgamation in the Northeast Avalon?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: That is a very good question to which I do not

have the answer, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly try to get all the

information compiled for the hon. member and have it delivered tout de suite.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, but while he

is compiling that information, and I would imagine he would probably have this

much of it compiled already, would the minister be able to inform the members of

this House and particularly the residents of the Goulds, what the costs would be

if this government phased in the tax increases that the people of the Goulds

have to suffer because of the amalgamation?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

member has his calculator and compiled the figures after the compilation of

figures that I give him that he would be able to figure it out for himself, if

not I will do it for him.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the

reaction of the minister, because I figured when he was put in that department,

he would understand what the taxpayers and municipalities go through. I realize

the minister who was there before him came from a St. John's council background

and he was a bit more removed from the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this

minister would laugh at the people of the Goulds who have to pay 100 per cent to

125 per cent increase in their taxes.

I ask the minister, would he consider setting up someone in

his department to be able to review the complaints, or the problems, I would

say, that the people in the Northeast Avalon are having dealing with the new

amalgamation. One of the complaints that such a person in the department might

be able to look after was the promise that staff from the amalgamated areas

would be hired by the existing municipalities, which is not happening, Mr.

Speaker. They were hired, but they are declared redundant now.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister have this staff person look

into the possibility of phasing in taxes for the Goulds area? And with respect

to legitimate problems such as was mentioned last night at the City Council

meeting, where a farmer, having been chased out of a residential area and

wanting to set up in a farming area can now be refused by City Council, would

this person in the department be available to the general public to look into

these types of complaints, Mr. Speaker, so that the minister can report back to

this House occasionally to see that these problems have been solved?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are all very good

questions, actually. In my second reply I might have been somewhat facetious

because I thought I had answered it in the first question. Anyway, having

listened to the number of questions that the member now presents, the answer

certainly would take quite a bit of tabling, and I will be delighted to have

anybody in the department entertain questions from groups, councils in the area,

or representatives of the people who might have questions along the lines of

amalgamation.

I will say to him that in some instances - unfortunately not

in all instances - I thought there were transition teams in place addressing all

of these, but I found out yesterday from my hon. friend that it was not working

quite right in one particular area. I have put in motion the necessary committee

to look after that. If the hon. member is aware of any other areas that need

that kind of attention, the department will have it done.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just asked the minister if, initially, he

would have one person in the department, not just anyone to answer these

questions, probably a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister, someone

who did some of the studies, to zero in on the problems. The main focus, Mr.

Speaker, to which I asked the minister to have his staff person give his

attention is to the phasing in of the taxes for the people in the Goulds, since

people are about to start losing their homes in that area because of tax

increases.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The idea of having one person address these

questions and the serious matters that the hon. member brings up is not a novel

one, Mr. Speaker. It is under consideration. Now that he has recommended it I

will take it under further advisement and see what can be done.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of

the Minister of Fisheries and our globe trotting Premier, I guess I should

address my question to the hon. the Government House Leader, the Minister of

odds and ends and everything else in the government.

Has the government received, I ask the minister, a request

from certain business interests to transfer the crab processing license at

Little Bay Islands in my district of Green Bay to Fleur de Lys in the district

of Baie Verte - White Bay?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Fisheries, I will take that question under advisement and report to the House as

soon as possible.

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

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Insofar as the crab processing license is the basis of the

economy of Little Bay Islands, which is an isolated island community served by a

ferry system, would the minister categorically reject the notion of a transfer

of such a license right off the bat rather than take it under consideration?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it would be imprudent to do that,

to reject something out of hand. I think that in fairness to the minister we

have to ask his department for the facts surrounding this issue, take a good

look at the facts and make a determination. You just can't do something blindly.

We will take that under advisement and do what is proper.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the minister

that this is not a matter of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', this is a matter of

killing Peter to pay Paul. So there is a moral dimension to this particular

issue, and I ask him, Does not this administration see it as an immoral act to

take the single industry away from an island community and move it to a nearby

district, resulting in the death of that island community?

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

MR. FUREY: We hear one side of an issue, Mr. Speaker. I

can assure you, we don't want to kill Peter and we don't want to kill Paul, and

we don't want to kill Alvin. We will take the facts and deal with them the best

way possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some

questions for the Minister of Finance. During the last election, this government

campaigned on a platform of building the economy through small business. We now

see, of course, that the government is blaming all their economic woes on

Hibernia, the fisheries and, more importantly, the federal government. Would the

minister like to tell us what plans he has to put programs in place which would

assist small business in these tough economic times?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have set up

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the arm of government by which

small businesses can get advice and help and things of that nature. That is the

main effort. We have also lowered the paper burden on small businesses to some

extent, and done a number of other things. Small businesses have very little

complaint with this present government, unlike the problem they had with the

previous government.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we saw how government lowered

the paper burden by imposing a payroll tax on small businesses. Any small

business bigger than a bull's-eye shop now pays a payroll tax in this Province.

Would the minister like to tell us, since he wants to help small business, will

he put back in place a program that he cancelled, which was a tax holiday for

new businesses for the first three years in business, that the minister

cancelled last April 1? Will he reinstate that program to assist new small

business to get started in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker. That was the silliest thing

that has ever come about. It was instituted by the other people. They were

encouraging people - what they did was, a small business would have its income

tax forgiven. Now, that would be great for anyone who made a profit - and they

did not need government assistance in that case. But the people who needed

assistance were the people who were having it hard and they would get no relief

under that system. So we cut out that silly program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the

minister is concerned about small businesses that need assistance. Would the

minister therefore tell us, will he provide that assistance in the same manner

as he did to fishermen who had loans from the Fisheries Loan Board? Will he now

forgive the interest on loans from small businesses which are losing money and

have loans from Enterprise Newfoundland or Newfoundland and Labrador Development

Corporation? Will he treat small businesses the same as he treated fishing

industries?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, small businesses are handled

through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and through the Economic Recovery

Commission. Many small businesses go to see these individuals, and there is a

variety of programs that the Minister of Development could describe in great

detail to handle these whole questions of financing and starting up small

businesses. Quite a number of them have been started and quite a number of them

have been assisted and are being assisted.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is some

assistance being given by Enterprise Newfoundland, I don't deny that. What I am

asking the minister is will he give some break to businesses - and the Minister

of Development may well answer, because he and I have had conversations - that

are still today paying 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent interest rate on

loans that they had a couple of years ago to get started?

Today you are losing money the same way as fishing interests

were losing money. Will the minister give those companies the same sort of

break? Will the minister take the Premier's words from December 15, 1989, in

responding to a question from my friend from Fogo, when the Premier said, 'It

was an example of the former government's misadministration of a program, where

they provided help for one group and excluded others in what I think is quite an

unfair way. Will the minister now be fair with these private enterprises and

treat them the same as other interests? Where is the fairness and balance?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the member is puffing up and

making a case where there is no case. Each business that wishes to discuss its

finances with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador does so. Each enterprise is

considered on its own merits. Sometimes businesses come to see the Minister of

Finance, too, and there are generally three or four per day that come and we

have a chat about this and that, particularly with respect to taxes, and usually

things are worked out quite well. The business community has very little

complaint with this government, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services. The

minister is aware that

Section 49 of the Child Welfare Act requires all persons

who have knowledge of a child being abused or in need of protection must report

that to the Director of Child Welfare or to a social worker. Can the minister

advise the House whether indeed any persons have ever been prosecuted for

failure to comply with that

section of the act?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to

that question but I will certainly find it out and report back to the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister had read the Hughes Commission Report he

would know that up at least until the time that the Commission reported to the

House there were no prosecutions that had taken place under that

section of the

act. So I want to ask the minister whether he sees - there may have been a

change since then, which is why I ask the question - whether he sees that as a

problem that people do not, and Commissioner Hughes said that the government

ought to enforce that section. Now it seems a bit surprising, and perhaps is the

minister surprised, that he needs a Royal Commission to tell the government to

enforce its own legislation, and can I ask the minister what plans he has to

assist in the prevention of child abuse by informing the public of their

obligations under that section?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows of

course, we have some thirty-five recommendations contained in the final

submission of the Hughes Report. As I have stated already publicly, we will take

the time, as a government, working with our officials and with outside agencies

and other interested parties, to consider those recommendations. So I cannot

comment specifically as to the government's intention on any one of those

recommendations or any matter pertaining to those recommendations at this time,

because as the member knows, government itself was not party to that report up

until last Friday, except for a few of the ministers.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can explain

why it is he has to consider whether or not he will accept the recommendation

that tells the government to enforce its legislation.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I could if I wished, comment

specifically on this question, but as government has already made the statement,

and I have certainly made it on behalf of government, that we will not comment

specifically on any of the recommendations until we have had time as a

government to consider them in the light of the Hughes Report, even though his

question could be related separately to affairs and dealings of the department,

the fact of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: The fact of the matter is that we do have

the Hughes Report; we do have the thirty-five recommendations; and we do want to

take the time to consider those recommendations before we comment on either one

of them specifically.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. In the

absence of the non-elected Justice Minister I would like to direct my question

to the House Leader. Recently solicitors on behalf of the Department of Justice,

sought and received a court injunction to ban Dereck O'Brien's book "Suffer

Little Children" for sale on the Avalon Peninsula. Would the minister advise why

a book that was written by a local author and published by a Newfoundland and

Labrador company was banned, and at the same time has allowed "Unholy Orders",

written by a TV personality and published by Penguin's International to be sold

on the Avalon Peninsula?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a decision was made by a justice of the court

that the opening, or allowing the sale of the book could possibly interfere with

a court case that was coming up. This was a decision made by a court justice,

Mr. Speaker, not made by government. I hesitate to comment on a decision made by

a justice of the court except to remind hon. members that Justice Hughes

indicated that it was the right thing to do, to cut out the pages relating to

this case from his report before it was released. So it is a comment of a

justice about the same type of matter. I don't want to take it beyond that, Mr.

Speaker.

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

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

The minister realizes also it was the government that asked

for the court injunction.

My supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker: Is the

minister aware that by banning this particular book it is estimated that the

company and the writer are going to lose approximately $200,000 in revenue? Now,

would the minister advise if government will compensate this particular

publisher and author for loss of revenue because of government's action with

regard to this particular book?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that it was a

decision of a court judge and not a decision of government. Government has an

obligation to go to the court at any point in time where it feels that there may

be a problem created in terms of the administration of justice in the Province.

In this instance we were bound to go to the court and indicate the possibility

that existed. The court examined the evidence on both sides and agreed. So, Mr.

Speaker, that is what happened in this particular case.

The answer to the last part of his question is obviously no.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplementary to the minister: I guess the minister

is aware that there are approximately 300,000 people living on the Avalon

Peninsula and, quite possibly, out of this 300,000 people surely goodness twelve

or fifteen people could have been found for a pending jury. So, therefore, why

would the minister ban the book "Suffer Little Children" on the Avalon

Peninsula? And by doing this, what avenue does he have now to collect the books

that people on the Avalon Peninsula already have that could also affect a

pending jury? How is he going to collect the books that have already been bought

and used, and used by members on the opposite side and this side? How are we

going to get these books back from circulation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland

has made a decision. Maybe members opposite, when they were in power, interfered

with decisions of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland but this government is not

going to.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising today as minister responsible for the Status of

Women to table the annual report of the Provincial Advisory Council on the

Status of Women for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of Public Tender Act

exceptions for March 1992.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here signed by thirty-one residents of

Little Bay Islands in the district of Green Bay, and the prayer of the petition

is as follows: We the undersigned residents of Little Bay Islands hereby

petition the hon. House of Assembly to instruct the hon. Minister of Fisheries

not to approve the transfer, either temporarily or permanently, of the crab

licence of S.T. Jones and Sons Limited to any other area in the Province.

As I indicated this particular petition is signed by

thirty-one residents, a small fraction of those who attended a public meeting

the other night in Little Bay Islands on this particular matter.

Mr. Speaker, last year the government saw fit to disrupt the

ferry services to Little Bay Islands. There was much to do about it in the

media, protests, tie-ups, police intervention, etc., that threatened the

viability of the crab operation at Little Bay Islands. I recommended over and

over again to the government on every possible opportunity in this House and in

the media that they drop the silly idea of trying to service the two islands

with one boat, and I was very pleased that in this Spring's Budget they came

along and actually reinstated the regular ferry service for both islands which

would certainly enhance the viability of the crab processing operation on Little

Bay Islands which last year had a bumper year. Little Bay Islands is one of the

few places in Newfoundland that actually has to import workers from the mainland

of the Island of Newfoundland to work in the fish plant when she is working at

full steam.

Mr. Speaker, we have certain business interests who claim to

have bought, or are in the process of buying, the processing plant at Little Bay

Islands and are trying to get the local residents, the council, and the

citizenry at large, to agree to a 'temporary transfer' of the licence to the

Liberal district of Fleur de Lys where I understand the Quinlan Company has a

crab processing line as well. Presumably, they would lease or rent space from

them on a temporary basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place. I again want to

remind hon. members about the undesirability of conducting so many meetings

while the House is in session. I was barely able to hear the hon. member. Once

we get noise all over the place it does nothing for the decorum of the House. It

is coming from several directions, and I point out to hon. members again that we

have this problem in this House which we have never had before and probably do

not get in other Houses because of the tremendous space we have which is

conducive to standing up and conducting meetings between the aisles, outside the

aisles, at the end of seats and everywhere else, so I ask hon. members to please

refrain from doing that as it does not help the Chair in maintaining order and

decorum. I have done this on several occasions and ought not to have to do it

again. I ask hon. members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier the

business interest concerned wished to have the licence removed from Little Bay

Islands. They say on a 'temporary basis' but I think we are all adults in this

particular Chamber and we know that if a fish processing licence is transferred

from an isolated island the chances of it getting back on that island and going

into operation again are practically nil. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that

this government should immediately, if it has already received, or if and when

it does receive such a formal request from these business interests, reject out

of hand the concept of transferring this licence.

I checked with the bureaucrats in the Department of

Fisheries. The transfer of a licence from one geographic location to another is

a rarity and it cannot be done at the bureaucratic level. It needs the signature

of the Minister of Fisheries which, in this particular government, given the

nature of the Wells' Administration, would also, of course, mean it would need

the approval of the Premier himself.

To actually remove this licence from this island to another

location would essentially kill the economy of Little Bay Islands and would

start the Liberal resettlement program of the 1960s all over again. Little Bay

Islands along with several other islands in the District of Green Bay resisted

that program in the 1960s and today I have four islands served by causeways and

two by ferry systems. One of those served by ferry systems has a viable, vibrant

crab processing operation. Now we have nothing short of

an act of economic

piracy underway and government, if it hasn't already been asked - the minister

didn't indicate earlier if they had been asked - will be asked, certainly, to

acquiesce in that particular act of economic piracy.

As I indicated to the Minister of Development, who said he

didn't want to kill Alvin, this is not a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

There is no alternative on Little Bay Islands. If you rob Peter in this

particular case, you kill Peter in this particular case and give a licence to a

community that already has a licence to process crab.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no moral or economic

justification on the part of this government for even entertaining an

application from the business interest concerned with regard to the transfer of

this licence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not my last time on this. In the immortal words of

John Paul Jones: I have just begun to fight.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to support the petition presented by my

colleague from Green Bay. I want to say at the outset, that there seems to be a

pattern, really, by the Minister of Fisheries. It is too bad he is not here

today. A few days after he became the Minister of Fisheries, he immediately

cancelled a crab licence that had been assigned to the St. Lawrence fish plant,

a plant that has been crying out for resource since it was put there, after the

Alcan Fluorspar Mines closed down in the late 1970s. Last year the minister

approved the transfer of a crab licence to a location within his own district.

And now we see another attempt, for whatever reasons, Mr. Speaker - there are

those who have different reasons why this would be happening. One being that it

might have something to do, again, with the recent Baie Verte by-election.

Now we see an island where the only source of livelihood is

being threatened again by this government. I think it is absolutely ridiculous

when you look at the struggle, Mr. Speaker, of the people in rural Newfoundland

today to survive in the communities where they live, to look at the downturn in

the fishing industry, to see a government that today would even entertain

transferring a crab processing licence from a one-industry town to another

community where there already is one.

Mr. Speaker, if someone on the other side would be so kind as

to stand in their place in response to this petition and explain why the

Minister of Fisheries and the government is even considering such a move. I

would like to hear someone opposite explain that because, Mr. Speaker, it seems

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Health, yes, he

will explain. He should sit down and relax, Mr. Speaker, because his form of

resettlement is not connected with the transfer of crab processing licences, it

is with the shutdown of hospitals and hospital beds in the Province.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Minister of Fisheries

is not here because this request for this transfer cannot take place without the

signature of the Minister of Fisheries. There has to be ministerial approval

given for it.

In supporting the petition today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

the people of Bay of Islands -

AN HON. MEMBER: Little Bay Islands.

MR. MATTHEWS: Little Bay Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't even get the name right, Little

Bay Islands.

MR. MATTHEWS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, is it possible for a

little vaccination, inoculation, of the minister so that we can at least get on

with the business? This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, for the people

concerned, I say to the Minister of Health.

MR. SIMMS: They don't care about a community dying. They

don't care about that.

MR. MATTHEWS: What does he care? That is right. He does

not care about individuals dying so I am not surprised he does not care about

communities dying, Mr. Speaker. The commonly referred to Dr. Death of the

Provincial Government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by supporting the

petition of the people, and I call upon the Minister of Fisheries to refuse the

request to transfer the crab processing licence, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to this petition

because I have some knowledge of it. It is unfortunate that the Fisheries critic

in the Opposition took the matter so lightly and strayed away, but that is

beside the point. I will make sure that the people of Little Bay Islands receive

a copy of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, this is basically an attempt by one business to

buy another business. The matter was brought to my attention. I suggested that

the people of Little Bay Islands would get advice from their member on this

issue, and it is regrettable that he chose to make this into a big political

football instead of dealing with the issue which is at hand here. The issue is

one company wants to buy another company. The people of Little Bay Islands do

not want to lose their crab plant. This government supports the people of Little

Bay Islands who do not want to lose their business, and that is why I am quite

satisfied to support the prayer of this petition, Mr. Speaker. But I caution

hon. members not to make this a big political football. It is not the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The first we heard about it was when someone from Little Bay

Islands called me - they just happened to know me - and said here is what is

going on. Government has no knowledge of this, Mr. Speaker. But if the attitude

of this member keeps up, it is going to get people's backs up and we don't know

what will happen out there in Little Bay Islands because this is simply an

attempt to make some politics on the back of an issue.

I was advised about the meeting which the hon. member

attended. The people of Little Bay Islands had no intention of coming with a

petition. They want to solve the problem. The hon. member immediately saw an

opportunity to make some political points, and he rushes out with a petition,

gets all the signatures, and it doesn't help to solve the problem one little

bit, Mr. Speaker. But I will tell the hon. member to tell his constituents on

Little Bay Islands that this administration is concerned with them, and we will

endeavour to do all in our power to ensure that if there is any way that licence

can be kept that in consultation with the Minister of Fisheries it will be kept

there in spite of the fact that the hon. member for the district is trying to

make cheap, low-down, political points on the issue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay on a point

of order.

MR. DECKER: And they will receive Hansard!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEWLETT: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I

attended a meeting in Little Bay Islands at the request of the council and the

citizenry of Little Bay Islands and received a round of applause as I entered

the hall before I even opened my mouth. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members again that the presentation of

a petition does not give members the right to carry on a debate on either side

of the House. I ask hon. members to be mindful of that as well.

Orders of the Day

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

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Notice was given yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that

the motion for a debate today was the motion of the Member for Torngat

Mountains, Number 9. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, now that members have had an

opportunity to read the Orders of the Day and Motion 13, which notice was given

on April 10th, whether or not members would now be prepared, without debate, to

pass Motion 13 as it is: the recognition of a day of mourning for workers

disabled, killed or injured in the workplace, and ask the Government of

Newfoundland to declare such a day as an official day of mourning. There is no

holiday involved. It is simply a recognition of that day officially by this

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have a word to say on this

point of order. I am just reading Hansard from yesterday where the matter was

raised yesterday as well. I was flabbergasted actually to be reading the

response of the Government House Leader. He has had twenty-four hours to

reconsider it. Perhaps he will have a look at it from a different point of view.

I think the request made by the member is a pretty reasonable request. The

request is made by the member on behalf, particularly of the trade unions in the

Province, who I guess have asked him to submit and put on the Order Paper such a

resolution. Now I understand the Government House Leader says we are a part of

Canada, and Canada has already declared a day of mourning. Well that being the

case, what harm can there possibly be in agreeing unanimously with little debate

to support the resolution? Is there something in the resolution itself that I

could not detect that irritates the government, because otherwise if we are part

associated with it. Mr. Speaker, if I might just for a second quote from the

resolution very briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: If I might just interrupt the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition for a moment, it is now 3:00 p.m. and it is the

obligation of the Chair to call for the motion of the day. I realize it is a

point of order. The Chair will not say what it is not, but since it is the hon.

member's own resolution, his side, he will understand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, just very briefly as I was saying, the resolution

asks that it be resolved that this House supports the recognition and

designation of the 28th of April each year as a "Day of Mourning for Persons

Killed or Injured In the Workplace".

Now we already recognize it, as the House Leader points out

correctly, because it is designated already by Canada, but in addition to that

we recognize it as political parties. The Minister of Employment was there to

lay a wreath at the ceremony yesterday. I was there on behalf of my party, and

the member was there on behalf of his party, so we already do it.

If the District Trades and Labour Council, or whatever group

is organizing that particular day of activity with - I do not know how many

wreaths were laid, but quite a few. There was a huge crowd there yesterday, I

must say, and they have asked that we designate it simply from a provincial

perspective, from our own provincial House perspective. I ask the minister if he

might reconsider the matter. It is not that serious, or not that important, and

maybe give consideration to unanimous consent just so we can have it dealt with,

because I think that is the purpose of the resolution. We are certainly prepared

to support it.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. He says it is

not an important matter, and I suggest it is a very important matter.

I gave my reasons yesterday, and they still stand today. I

indicated that obviously everybody in the House supports the recognition of that

day as a "Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace", and

we went through a ceremony and so on. We all support that and recognize that,

this is an official day of mourning. Now that has already been declared by the

If the resolution was simply that we recognize and support

this day, that is fine; but to me, when an hon. member brings in a resolution

like this asking us to declare something that has already been declared by the

federal government, I look upon it simply as grandstanding on his part. Now that

is the way I explained it. So the reasoning that I gave yesterday still applies

today. Obviously we recognize it. We have recognized it, and we support it, and

there is nothing surer than that. And, in the second part, it has already been

declared an official day of mourning for this Province and for the whole

country, so again nothing can be accomplished by that except the hon. member, I

believe, was doing some grandstanding. So that is the reason. I hope the

Opposition House Leader understands. It is an important issue, and it is an

important occasion. It is not an unimportant occasion, as the member states, and

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well that is what I heard, and it does not

really have to be used as a political football in this House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just one final argument, Mr. Speaker.

It is the Government House Leader who is creating the

political football out of the issue. His party supports it. We support it. All

he has to do is say, 'Yes, we support it' and it is passed. I did not say it was

not an important issue. In fact, it is an extremely important issue, but it is a

fairly simple request, and I cannot understand - I can understand the Government

House Leader wanting to attack the NDP member for grandstanding. That is fair

ball, if he wants to make some politics, but he said that. Now having said that,

can we eliminate the political football and agree to pass the resolution

unanimously? That is all. What is the reason for not doing it, aside from the

fact that we are all a part of Canada? Is there some reason why we cannot do it

otherwise? And is he aware if other jurisdictions have passed such a resolution,

or designated a day of mourning?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, we are on a point of order. The Chair has heard enough

to make a ruling. As I have indicated previously we are into Private Members'

Day. The Chair knows what it ought to do on this. But I will entertain, since

both stood, one comment from the Member for St. John's East and the Government

House Leader and that should conclude the matter.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In reference to the

comments of the Government House Leader talking about the Member for St. John's

East grandstanding, this resolution was put on the Order Paper on April 10. It

was the Opposition House Leader who yesterday raised it and sought unanimous

consent, and I was obviously delighted to see him do that. But to suggest that

it was grandstanding by me as an individual as opposed to a simple request to

have this government to recognise an official day and to join in with the

actions to do (Inaudible) very simple thing. Say: yes, we agree, we want to

declare this an official day of mourning for this Province of Newfoundland as

well.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the resolution says: that we

direct the government to declare this day as an official day of mourning, and so

on. That has already been done. The member is playing silly little games. It has

already been done by the federal government for the whole of Canada and we

participate in that as a province of Canada as every other province in this

country I hope has done. So the members opposite are playing silly little

political games with a very important issue that they should not be playing

silly political games with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member asked that the

House unanimously approve his resolution and that was the crux of the matter. It

is not a point of order. I get the distinct impression that there is not

unanimity in this matter. No point of order.

Private Members' Day

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

with his private member's resolution.

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

February 28, 1980, I brought a resolution into this House asking for improved

ambulance service on the coast of Labrador. I considered then one of - all

members of the House supported that resolution - I figured then that was one of

the most important resolutions that I as a private member could ever introduce

into the House of Assembly.

Today I think it is fair to say that the resolution that I

want to present today, I consider will go down in history. If this House passes

this legislation today, passes this bill today - it will go down in history as

one of the greatest things that has ever been accomplished by a House of

Assembly anywhere in Canada.

Before I go further, I spoke to the House Leader earlier, and

I understand the House Leader would be in agreement if it is okay that we would

change the 'be it resolved' to read:

BE IT RESOLVED that the government take the

necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of

Newfoundland to that of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I spoke to the House Leader before we started today and he

saw no reason why we could not leave out that resolved and put this one in there

in place of it and we will continue. I understand he may have some amendment to

come afterwards. I will pass it over to the hon. member if he wishes. But:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the government take the necessary constitutional steps to change

the name of the Province of Newfoundland to that of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. So as you can see that resolve will replace the resolve that is

already there.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is not a normal thing we are

doing here, obviously. The hon. member wanted to do this yesterday but I

suggested that he do it today. All he is saying is that he wishes that the first

'be it resolved' be changed to what he just read out, and the second 'be it

resolved' still stays there. Mr. Speaker, if he wants that to be his motion it

is perfectly okay with me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair wants to be certain. Again, for

the precedence of this House it is not normal for a member to amend his own

motion so I understand this is by agreement, so when some future Speaker looks

at this ruling he will not wonder what the present Speaker did. We are doing

this by unanimous agreement, by unanimous consent, by unanimity.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us get on to what this resolution is all about. Since

Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 we have the Province of Newfoundland

and we have the portion we call Labrador, and today we have the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador but under our Terms of Union we have the Province of

Newfoundland. Before I complete my few remarks this afternoon I hope to

illustrate to all members here why we should all get together and take the first

step - I say to all my colleagues to take the first step, and the first step is

to get this House to approve that change, and once we get this House to approve

that change the next step is to take it then and go to the House of Commons with

it and let it be dealt with there. That is the second step but in order to do

the second step you have to do the first step, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: My hon. colleague for Eagle River has

interrupted right away and said the first step is already done. I was hoping he

would say that, Mr. Speaker, because the first step is not done. Seeing he

brought it up let me go back to May 28, 1964. I want to read this, Mr. Speaker,

and let my hon. colleague for Eagle River understand what happened in 1964. The

hon. Leader of the Opposition of the day, Mr. J. Greene brought forward the

following resolution: I therefore move, seconded by the Member for Humber East

that the government should take the necessary constitutional steps immediately

to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

That was May 28, 1964. What did the late J.R. Smallwood say?

I want to say something else, Mr. Speaker. It was the shortest speech that J.R.

Smallwood ever made in the Legislature and I will read word for word what he

said. 'Mr. Speaker, it could do nothing but harm to Canada and Newfoundland to

introduce this resolution into the Parliament of Canada at this particular time.

For this reason we reject this irresponsible resolution and ask the Leader of

the Opposition to withdraw it and if he will not withdraw it we will ask all the

members of this House to vote against it.' That was the end of his speech, that

was the speech of the late J.R. Smallwood in 1964.

Let it be recorded that when the vote was taken on May 28,

1964 those for the resolution were, Dr. Murphy, Mr. Renouf, the Leader of the

Opposition, and Mr. A. Murphy. Mr. Speaker, the four opposition members at the

time, those are the members who were for the resolution. Against the resolution

- in fact the names that are there now also includes one by the name of Mr.

Carter, who is also a member of the House now. Mr. Carter probably from Burgeo -

Bay d' Espoir at that time, Ches Carter, so it was Mr. Carter at the time, Mr.

Neary and Mr. Sparkes and Mr. Winsor, who was the Member for Northern Labrador

at the time, Captain Earl Winsor, the late Captain Earl Winsor, and Mr. Hill,

who was the Member for Southern Labrador at the time. So you can see, Mr.

Speaker, at that time the Premier said it should not be done, but, if that had

been done back in May 1964, we would not have the feeling of separation, the

feeling of Labrador against Newfoundland or Newfoundland against Labrador, which

exists in our Province today. That is our problem.

We have Labrador up there and it is like one of the members

said at that time: we have a rainbow of gold in Labrador, we need Labrador, let

us hold on to Labrador. But with a little change, Mr. Speaker. You know it may

not mean very much to the Member for Carbonear but I suggest to the Member for

Carbonear, come next month or two weeks from now, a lot of his constituents will

be getting aboard their boats and going down to Labrador and taking the fish

from there and bringing it back home. I say to the Member for Labrador, I say to

him, a lot of his constituents - and so they should, I have no problem with

that, but, remember this is some of the problems, they can see this happening

every day. So let us call it one Province; the problem is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Well, it should be called the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what I am trying to say to the hon. member

and before I finish today, also, I am going to ask that there be a free vote and

at the same time I am going to ask for division at the end of my comments today,

and I am sure all members of this Legislature will support this particular

resolution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some people may be saying: what are the

people saying, is there any more support around pertaining to this change? In

the Labradorian, Rompkey supports the request to change the Province's name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WARREN: Rompkey. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to read

some quotations because Mr. Rompkey made some very valid points here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: - Oh, I will read that too. Mr. Rompkey made

very valid points here.

AN HON. MEMBER: The best MP we ever had in Labrador by

the way.

MR. WARREN: In fact, I say to my hon. colleague and I

think it is fair to say, the best MP that Labrador ever had was, Mr. Rompkey

and, Mr. Speaker, when and if he retires, there will be large and good shoes to

fill.

The Member of Parliament for Labrador says he supports the

quest to have the Province's name changed from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and

Labrador. Mr. Rompkey says: I hope and believe there will be widespread approval

and support for this act all across the Province. Matters such as this must be

initiated in the Province. Now Mr. Rompkey is a federal MP and I want to compare

what Mr. Rompkey said and what my hon. colleague from Eagle River said on this

particular issue.

Mr. Rompkey, is a federal MP, he has been up there now

seventeen or eighteen years and he said: Matters such as this must be initiated

in the Province, but once there is agreement on the matter, which I am asking

for today, the Constitution of Canada can be amended with the consent of the

Province and the federal government. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the federal

member, Mr. Rompkey, saying these words, and I will repeat it again, Mr.

Speaker, because apparently the Member for Eagle River does not understand.

Matters such as this must be initiated by the Province, but once there is

agreement on the matter, which I am asking for today -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are not.

MR. WARREN: Once there is agreement on the matter, Mr.

Speaker - I am asking for agreement today - the Constitution of Canada can be

amended with the consent of the Province and the federal government. Those are

Mr. Rompkey's comments, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Now, what else does Mr. Rompkey say? He said,

"The move is coming at an opportune time. What this says to the world is that

Labrador is here, it is distinct and unique in culture and heritage but it is

part of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is a part of Canada. We couldn't be

doing this at a better time. This is the right time in Canadian history to

assert who are we are and what we are part of." Now, Mr. Speaker, those are Mr.

Rompkey's comments.

Now, I say to my colleagues, listen to the rest of Mr.

Rompkey's comments. "The MHA for Eagle River does not agree."

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WARREN: "The MHA for Eagle River does not agree." He

said, "The name of the Province is not an issue which needs to be addressed by

the Province." Now, here, Mr. Speaker, we have a member of this Legislature, who

is a member for Labrador, saying it is not an issue and it should not be

addressed by this Province. If we don't address this problem, who is going to

address it, Mr. Speaker? "It is not an issue," he said.

Now, Mr. Dumaresque says, "There is already a law which

states Labrador must be included in any reference made towards the Province."

Mr. Speaker, let me contradict my hon. colleague when he said that.

I have a letter here that was written by a Colonel on

November 25, 1991. I wrote to National Defence because I was flying on a small

plane on the Labrador Coast last fall when I noticed the in-flight book which

was there. So I picked it up and started going through it. I looked up Mary's

Harbour and right after Mary's Harbour was Newfoundland. So I got a little bit

perturbed. I said, `Look, it is supposed to be Mary's Harbour, Labrador or, if

we changed the name, Mary's Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. So I wrote a

letter to National Defence because I was upset when I saw this particular book

in the small plane, which they get every year, sort of as a direction book for

all the airports in Canada. So I wrote the letter and they wrote a letter to

another division up in Ottawa.

I want to read this letter into the record, what this Colonel

said as it pertains to this particular letter which I wrote. He said:

"I refer to your letter of October 24, 1991. The Canada

Flight Supplement, although distributed by the Department of National Defence,

is published by Energy, Mines and Resources Canada.

"Enclosed is the reply received from EMR. It indicates that

the approved name is the Province of Newfoundland. In order to effect an

amendment to the Constitution, any official change to the name of the province

would have to be staffed, officially, by the Province to the Federal Department

of Justice."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is coming from the federal department

saying that in order for anything to be changed it would have to be requested by

the Province. This is what I am saying today, Mr. Speaker in my resolve, "BE IT

RESOLVED that the constitutional steps be taken." And I ask this government to

take those constitutional steps.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I go any further I want to say a

special thank you, and I think all of us in this Legislature should say a

special thank you to many, many people who have been saying this for years and

years, but one person in particular. I am going to read for the record a copy of

a letter this person sent to me a few days ago. In fact, he even said, "If you

wish to read the following statement, please feel free to do so." Mr. Speaker, I

want to do this for the record:

"There appears to be a growing sentiment that the gulf

between the respect that Labrador is due and the respect that Labrador is given

is widening. This feeling is understandable considering the many actions and

policies over the years" - now he is not saying just in the last two years, he

is saying over the years - "that have served to contribute to Labradorians

sharing feelings of neglect. Given that Labrador has contributed to the Province

in economic terms, it would only seem right that this Province start giving

back. It would seem so petty for this Province to deny the people of Labrador

our own identity. Giving to Labrador is not taking away from Newfoundland. In

fact, we would both be enriched. How ironic it would be if Newfoundland, a

province known far and wide for its hospitality, was to express hostility

towards Labrador's simple desire for recognition.

In Labrador, isolation, underdevelopment and even poverty are

still elements of day-to-day life. These factors have no doubt contributed to a

deep-rooted sense of discontent and disenchantment. Refusing us our own

identity, washing it over with arrogance, ignorance and insensitivity, can only

contribute to the strained relationship between the two parts of our Province.

Including Labrador in the name of our Province would be a change. A symbolic

change, maybe, but at least a beginning. This is all Labrador wants, that is all

Labrador needs, a beginning."

Now, Mr. Speaker, since 1949, surely to goodness, isn't it

time for us as legislators to give Labrador a beginning? It is not too late. We

should have it done it in 1964. The last paragraph of this gentleman's

statement: "Let no one suffer the mistaken notion that changing the name will

miraculously solve all of the serious problems faced by those of us living in

Labrador. However, at the same time, let no one underestimate the power of the

attachment we have to our great land or the strength and resolve with which we

cling to it, to our heritage and our identity as Labradorians."

Now, the last sentence: "The repeated failure of the

Newfoundland governments to appreciate and recognise this is an all too common

theme in Labrador's history. For Labrador's sake and for our Province's sake we

must all hope that the Provincial government will finally learn the lesson of

history.

Now, that is from Wally McLean. Wally McLean is a crusader,

because he took this ball and he is still running with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave! By leave!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, one second? With this ball he

wants to achieve what the other 32,000 people in Labrador want to achieve, and

what thousands of people on the island want to achieve, which is to have our

Province called the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me

say that generally government is supportive of this particular approach. I have

to say to the hon. member that I regret that he always - I guess he gets carried

away and can't help it. But in his speeches he tends to use so much of the time

with raw politics and trying to throw some darts at some other members from

Labrador and so on. I regret he uses time for that.

Nevertheless, I will have to say to him that generally the

overall intent of this resolution finds favour with government. No wonder, Mr.

Speaker, the recognition of Labrador in terms of all government correspondence

and all that kind of thing found favour in 1964 when

an act was passed that did

not accomplish this purpose but it accomplished another purpose. That was to

make it possible to, in all official correspondence, in terms of the government

of the Province, make reference to both Newfoundland and Labrador.

So that has been in existence for quite some time. Up to 1982

it was probably very difficult to change anyway. Because at that point in time

you would have to go to England to get the change. And that was rather

difficult. You had to go through two processes, one in Canada, one in England.

Since 1982, though, it has become a little easier to do.

Because I understand that the mechanisms - and I am not absolutely certain of

the mechanism myself - but I understand that the mechanisms are relatively much

easier today than they were pre-1982 to bring about some kind of constitutional

change. However, I want to say to members opposite that I am going to propose an

amendment, and I want to explain why. There are some reasons that I think

members opposite should take into account.

First of all - well, I will get to that in a few minutes. I

just want go over my reasons and you can follow my reasoning. First of all, I am

not absolutely certain, as Government House Leader here today, exactly what the

mechanisms are that are going to be followed. I am not certain, as well, of any

impacts there might be. I would like to know these things before we actually

jump ahead and do something. My natural tendency is to be fairly cautious, and

instead of immediately jumping into something, to look at all aspects of it

somehow. I am very pleased to see that I have the support of the Leader of the

Opposition in this regard.

In January of this year, as a matter of fact, he indicated

that he would support officially changing the name, but he said that he would

like to see the subject researched thoroughly prior to any decisions being made

to see what exactly is involved. So I am glad to see that I have the support of

the Leader of the Opposition in terms of a cautious approach, but support at the

same time. So I am going to propose an amendment because of that.

There is another reason, as well. I am not certain, it may

have no bearing at all, but in my untutored mind, I suppose, I am worried about

a problem that might arise at this point in time in Canadian history when there

is an awful lot going on right now this day and over the next month or so, an

awful lot going on in terms of constitutional change. I am kind of leery of

Newfoundland right at this moment coming up and getting into that situation with

a suggested constitutional change that may or may not be interpreted or

misinterpreted the right way in other parts of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No. I am being serious, now, I am not being

political. I am being serious. There is a serious problem in Canada and

constitutional comments sometimes cause great furor and great concern in other

parts of Canada. Anything that is said or done by a province is interpreted in

the light of what is going on constitutionally now.

So I am not sure about that. I am not saying that it would be

a big problem, but I am not saying it would not be a big problem. I think that

to be responsible and to be reasonable, you have to at least take that into

account at this point in our history.

There is another problem I have, and that is that it is a big

move to change the official name of the Province. I really would like to see

some input from the people of the Province. If we are going to change the name,

then surely heavens, it is a big move and we should give them some input into

that change.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition has been going around the

Province indicating -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No.

The Leader of the Opposition has been going around the

Province indicating that people should have input into fundamental decisions,

and to me, that is a fundamental decision.

So, Mr. Speaker, bearing all those things in mind - and this

is not an amendment made like normal amendments made in Private Member's Day

sometimes to try to trick somebody or to try to change the intent, or to try to

turn it to political advantage and all that kind of stuff. That is not the

intent of this. The reasons I gave are real.

I am going to move, seconded by the Member for Stephenville,

that the necessary deletions and additions being made to the first

Be It

Resolved -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Bellevue.

MR. BAKER: The Member for Bellevue.

- to make the necessary deletions and additions to have the

first 'be it resolved 'read:

BE IT RESOLVED that a select committee of this

House be appointed to examine the implications of, and the proper mechanism for

taking the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of

Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that this

committee accept and examine - I did not want to make it any more restricted

than that - accept and examine the views of the residents of this Province. Mr.

Speaker, could you check and see if that is in order?

MR. SPEAKER: I am going to recess the House for just a

couple of minutes.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair moves that the amendment is in order under

basically two conditions, one that the amendment can be changed by deletion of

certain words. What we have here is deletion of certain words, deletion of the

first resolution. We are still looking at two resolutions. What we have done now

is an amendment to the first resolution, the resolution which states:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly recognize the Province as the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is amended now to read that all the words after

'that' in the first resolve be eliminated. Is that correct?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) the resolution at that point in

time by unanimous consent of the House read:

BE IT RESOLVED that the government

take the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of

Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was my

understanding of it. That was what was in existence. This would add some words

to that but essentially most of those same words are used in that.

MR. SPEAKER: It is substantially the same.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some

clarification to my hon. colleague. Why not leave in the 'be it resolved'

portion that we agreed with at the beginning of the session this afternoon and

'be it further resolved' that a select committee of this House be appointed. Why

not do it that way, and 'be it further resolved'?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Government House Leader going to

make a contribution?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, my position is that the words:

take the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of

Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is part of what I am

saying. I am saying you add some words at the beginning and add some words at

the end of that.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be contradictory to say

that the government do that change now, and then examine the change afterwards,

for the reasons that I gave. My amendment indicates that we support this idea;

however, there are a number of reasons why we would prefer to go through this

process, and I outlined them to the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

What we are doing is actually substituting the first resolve

in the resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains. The

Chair was about to say - I read the wrong resolution - but the Chair was about

to say that it moves the amendment in order on two counts; one that the actual

amendment itself - we are allowed to do this by deletion of certain words and

adding other words; and secondly that it gives the House a better chance to give

its total vote on the amendment, and hon. members will know that this is an

amendment so they get a chance to vote on both aspects of the motion. They get a

chance to vote on the motion as presented by the hon. Member for Torngat

Mountains; then they also get a chance to vote on the motion as amended.

I move the amendment in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not intend to take my full time, but because of the

reaction of members opposite I have to point out once again, and some of the

members were not here to hear the reasons that I gave, and they are, I believe,

very sensible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. member that his time is up because

of the time that we took out for the -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. BAKER: I will just take two minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons I gave were very serious reasons,

and I do believe that this is a fundamental change which we support, and no

problem with that. There is a fundamental change that I believe we have to now

go and get the views of the people in the Province. I think that is an important

process. We have to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well it can be arranged between myself and the

Opposition House Leader, because that is how the committee would be appointed. I

think it is important that we do that.

I think it is important that we do not jump into this right

now without looking at the other serious implications that I mentioned, okay? I

think it is really important that we examine all sides of this, and I mentioned

to the Opposition House Leader that this is entirely in line with the attitude

of his leader, the Opposition Leader, who has stated publicly that we should

examine it seriously rather than just do it flippantly - examine it seriously.

It is in line with his suggestions, and the fact that there may be some

implications, and we will find these out.

I seriously believe that that process has to be done before

we make a fundamental change like that. I do not want to see it done in a

hurried or a flippant manner, or an unconsidered manner, but we support the idea

simply because it is a silly situation right now where we refer to the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are the Province of

Newfoundland. Well if the Province of Newfoundland already includes Labrador,

then we are saying we are the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and

Labrador. It does not make sense, right? So either we do one or the other.

Either we drop what we have been doing since 1964 - either we drop that or we go

all the way and make the second change. I believe that, but I indicate to hon.

members that seriously I believe we should go through that process.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Private

Member's resolution which proposes to officially change the name of this

Province to the name of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of

Labrador have quite often expressed the idea that there isn't a recognition from

the island portion of the Province of the contribution that Labrador makes, not

just economically to the coffers of the government, but the social contribution

that Labrador makes, the athletic contribution that it makes.

The contributions that I am speaking of are the contributions

when teams travelling from Labrador compete, that kind of contribution, or the

contribution that groups such as the Carol Players have made to the whole social

pattern of this Province by competing on the island portion of the Province in

many, many drama festivals. I would add that it is probably the most recognized

drama groups, probably the most publicly awarded group in this Province. The

social contribution, the aboriginal carvings and other aspects of their culture

that they have contributed.

Mr. Speaker, their contributions have not really been

recognized. I suppose there is nobody who has ever lived or visited Labrador who

has not been told that Labrador has not been recognized by people who sit in

this Legislature or walk the streets or shopping centres on the island portion

of this Province. They just don't appreciate the contribution that Labrador

makes, and there is no doubt that there has been a degree of alienation

developed over a number of years. I must admit that in recent years - I have

only lived in Labrador for twenty-eight years - I have to say today there is

more alienation in Labrador than there has ever been since I have lived there.

As a member of the constitutional committee that travelled Labrador, after the

committee was struck last October, we travelled there part of Christmas, I think

it was, and the people represented had a very common theme and we addressed it

in our report. Every part of Labrador that we visited said that there is a

deepening sense of alienation developing between the island portion of the

Province and the so called mainland portion of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to that end the committee recommended that

the issue of the potential separation of Quebec from Canada was particularly

sensitive in Labrador. Each presentation made there suggested that a separation

by Quebec would necessitate a review by Labradorians of their constitutional

status, and they would give serious consideration in seeking territorial or

provincial status. The long-standing feelings of alienation held by many

Labradorians were a constant theme of the presentations.

Mr. Speaker, that feeling of alienation has been there for

hundreds of years. When people talk about the discovery of this Province of

Newfoundland, they always talk about John Cabot who came here and discovered

Newfoundland in 1497. Probably they don't understand that Labrador - we have

always been split geographically, since the ice age, split from the island

portion of the Province geographically by the Straits, Mr. Speaker, but the name

Labrador got it's name I believe about three years later when the Portuguese

explorer Corte Real, I believe, sailed with one of the people who also sailed

with John Cabot three years previously, and he was a landholder or farmer by the

name of Jorge Fernandez I think it was.

MR. WARREN: Your good on your Spanish names.

MR. A. SNOW: He was the one who influenced Corte Real to

travel that route and of course they discovered Labrador. It was named after

this landholder who sailed on this ship with Corte Real. He was born in the

Azores, I believe. But that is how we got the name. Subsequent to the discovery,

the island portion of the Province was fished mostly by the merchants from

England, and of course they came over and some of them settled here and the

Basques who came over, Mr. Speaker, and fished in Labrador and settled in

Labrador, up in the Red Bay region.

Even then there was a feeling of difference between the

people there and the people on the island portion of the Province, or the people

who came from somewhere else, to take what they were taking from Labrador.

Because that is how the people of Labrador feel, that alienation. That people

from somewhere else have always come in and taken out, and don't put anything

back. They blame the aboriginals of the day for coming in to Labrador, in the

Red Bay area then. The aboriginals would come down and as written in history

they would suggest that the aboriginals used to take some of the iron tools that

the Europeans had, the Basques had brought over, and they referred to it as

stealing. But of course, when the Basques took the whales or the caribou, there

was no reference of their stealing the caribou in our history. There is no

reference to that whatsoever.

So you can see right back in history this feeling of

alienation was even developed then. That it was okay for the Basques to come and

take whales but when the aboriginals who were sharing the resources of the land

- both the Inuit and the Innu at that time - when they would take from the

Basques, tools - the rope or the iron tools that they use - that was considered

stealing. That was wrong. It started even then. It continues today. It continued

when we had the early settlement, the livyers that went to the Labrador coast

and settled there to eke a living. There was very little government, if you

will, government services that was even recognised on the island portion of the

Province that was given to these people. There was nothing given to the people

of Labrador. The only services they would get would be the services that were

delivered in the summer. Because that was when the people from the island, from

Newfoundland, would be in there, taking, again, the fish, and not leaving

anything back there.

The same thing occurs even today. They remove the resources -

such as where I live - they take the money from the riches of the ground, the

sale of the iron ore, and we are not expected to be living in western Labrador.

I am as guilty as anybody else. I have lived there for twenty-eight years. When

I went to western Labrador I went there with the idea of living there for maybe

a year or a year and a half. To get enough money to go to university. I would

say most people looked at Labrador that way then, and unfortunately most

Newfoundlanders still look at Labrador as that. As a place to go, make some

money quickly, get out, come back home to Newfoundland.

That same thing occurs today, whether it was going in to take

the fish off the coast, or the iron ore out of western Labrador, or to work in

construction on Churchill Falls. It was to go in, stay for a short period, take

it, take whatever you can get, and take your money back to the island, to

Newfoundland, not Labrador. You take it back to Newfoundland and that is the way

we - and I say "we," we as a people - have developed, or not developed.

Whichever way you want to refer to it as - This Province. Now, there has to be a

recognition, first of all, of this deepening alienation and how we are going to

cure it, and part of this process is, first, recognizing that there is a

problem.

The hon. minister, the President of Treasury Board, said that

he supports the intent of it. Well, this is not going to cure this alienation,

Mr. Speaker. He not only has to support the intent of this Private Member's

resolution, we have to remove all the things that cause this deepening feeling

of alienation that is settling in Labrador. And the only way to do that is, we

have to recognize the contribution and we have to treat Labradorians as equals.

We, as Labradorians are not owned by Newfoundland, we are

not; we are part of this Province. As a land mass, we are three times the size

of the Island portion of the Province - about three times the size of it. A per

capita contribution to the GDP, we contribute more, about three times as much as

the Island residents of this Province. So we are not owned by - we are stolen

from, a lot of people feel. But we don't get treated fairly, and that is what

has to be addressed. It is not just the name change, but it is part of it; it is

important, because by continuously saying Newfoundland and Labrador, it

reinforces the idea, and there are other things that this government and

previous governments should do and should have done.

One of the other things, Mr. Speaker, is that Labrador has

its own flag, as Newfoundland does, and that flag should be flown on provincial

government buildings, that is another recognition that people of Labrador want.

MR. WARREN: Very simple.

MR. A. SNOW: We are proud of our flag in Labrador. Mr.

Speaker, it flies at the Town Hall in Labrador City, it flies at the Town Hall

in Wabush, it flies in Nain, it flies in Southern Labrador, I am sure, it flies

in practically every community at their town halls, but it doesn't fly over

provincial buildings.

Mr. Speaker, some people on the other side are even muttering

now that it is separatism. It isn't, Mr. Speaker, it is a recognition of who we

are in Labrador and that we want to participate in this Province, but we want a

recognition from the rest of this Province that we are part of this Province,

and the only way to do that is to start recognizing things such as changing the

name, recognizing the flag and, Mr. Speaker, there is another one, it is the

map.

The geographic land mass of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, as I

suggested, is about three times the size of the Island portion of this Province,

yet, if you look at the official map of this Province, you will see Labrador

stuck up in a corner somewhere about half the size of the Island and you will be

amazed at the number of people in this Province who have completed high school,

and are working for the provincial government, and think that Labrador is just a

little bit larger than the Avalon Peninsula. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. We

reinforce, through official publications such as the map that Labrador is only

about half the size or a quarter of the size of the Island portion of the

Province, so why would you think that is correct? And yet we continue to do it.

Another thing we should be doing is we should change that

map, publish a map realistically. Would Newfoundlanders be offended if Canada

published a map without the Island of Newfoundland on it? You are darned right

they would be offended, and this House would probably be called into an

emergency session. There would probably even be people returning from Europe if

there were a map put out tomorrow; people would be coming back from Europe

saying: Boy, we have to tell those people in Ottawa that Newfoundland is part of

this country, but yet it is okay for Labrador to be stuck up in a corner and be

recognized as just a little piece of land stuck up there about half the size of

the Island portion of the Province. Again, that is another thing that has to be

done, Mr. Speaker.

Is that going to change really the way of life in Labrador,

if we change the name, we change the map, we change the flags or we have a

ruling on the flags? No, Mr. Speaker, more importantly than all those things, is

that, there has to be a change in the attitude of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

MR. WARREN: Both governments.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, somebody from the other side

suggested it is the federal government. Now, I have attempted to try to keep

this on a level field. Some people may want to bring that down lower than the

high part of the road, but I do not, Mr. Speaker. The government of the day have

to recognize that other things have to be addressed. There is no reason in the

world, when we have a highway in Labrador, why people in Labrador should have to

wait to see when the snow is going to be removed from it to connect communities,

Mr. Speaker. That is our Trans-Canada Highway. There is absolutely no reason. I

mean, Gander people don't have to wait until the Budget comes down, or wait for

some negotiations with some private company or some Crown corporation to see if

the snow is going to be removed next year, to see if they are going to be able

to drive from Grand Falls to Gander. They don't have to wait for that, yet the

people in Labrador are expected, that - just because there is a road there it

doesn't mean it is going to be open year-round. That attitude has to change. If

the road is built it should be maintained. It is an accepted fact. But in

Labrador some people think, this administration thought, we do not know if we

are going to be doing it. That is wrong. There was never, ever a discussion on

the Island portion of the Province, Newfoundland, to decide whether or not they

were going to see if they could get somebody else to plow the road between

Gander and Grand Falls. When the bridge wasn't even completed there, Mr.

Speaker, under the Liberal administration, they used to have a ferry there to go

back and forth all the time. But this one says, Well, there is a bridge not

completed and even when it is completed we don't know what we are going to do,

whether the road is going to be open year-round. That attitude has to change.

And that is what is going to be more important, when the attitudes of people

living in Newfoundland change to give Labrador the respect it has earned and

deserved. Over the last hundreds of years it has contributed to the economy of

this Province, to the whole Province. It has to be changed in treating the

people of Labrador equal and giving them equality in name, the right to fly a

flag, and also giving them a return on the taxes they pay in the sense of what a

government has to do is deliver services to its people who pay taxes.

Recognizing that the people of Labrador contribute more per capita than

Newfoundlanders do, that is when we will be truly a part of this Province. I

certainly hope that this House supports it. I hope that people such as Wally

McLean and Doris Saunders who have lead this debate and prompted discussion

about it, and who want to see this problem addressed and the other problems I

have just touched on very briefly in twenty minutes - they want to see those

problems addressed. All the other Labradorians out there want to see this House,

this government, future governments, and people in the streets of the

Newfoundland portion of the Province recognize the contribution Labradorians

have made to this whole Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and participate in this

particular debate. I am very pleased to rise and support the resolution and the

amendment put forward by the Government House Leader. I am very pleased, Mr.

Speaker, for a number of reasons, but the primary reason I am pleased here today

is to see that the traditions of the great Liberal Party are extended again to

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: The hon. the Member for Torngat

Mountains, in his opening statement, talked about the private member's

resolution that was put up there some time in March, 1964. He talked about how

that particular resolution didn't get the agreement of the day. Well, Mr.

Speaker, for the record, actions speak louder than words. On June 10, 1964, the

House of Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of this Province proclaimed

an Act

called 'The Labrador Act,' Mr. Speaker. That was the action of the hon. Joey

Smallwood and the Liberal Government of the day. That was the action of a

government that reached out to Labrador and exercised the options and the

authority of the House of Assembly to its fullest. That Act, Mr. Speaker,

through the House of Assembly, recognized, in any reference whatsoever that the

government of the day made to the Province of Newfoundland that Labrador had to

be included; the same reference in the Coat of Arms and in every other aspect of

government and every other way that the House of Assembly and the government of

the day could speak about the Province it had to, by law, include Labrador as a

part of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that the hon. member opposite

would like to skew in his favour. Let there be no confusion, Mr. Speaker, the

fact is that whatever authority the House of Assembly ever had was proclaimed in

the 1964 Labrador Act. That is the record and that is the record of the Liberal

Party to date.

Now, I suppose we could also look to see what the record of

the other party has been to date in this hon. House of Assembly. Before I get

into that, though, I would like to acknowledge the contribution that was made

today by the Government House Leader and thank him most sincerely for the

support that this government has provided, Mr. Speaker, to see that this issue

is finally put to rest.

I thought it was also coincidental and very, very nice to

have another historic ruling, another historic announcement today, on behalf of

this government for the people of Labrador, and a recognition by this government

that the people of Labrador should not go incurring extra hydro cost at the

behest of the rest of the Province. We have seen today another example of how

this Liberal Government has reached out to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, but particularly the people from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain who would

have seen a 10 per cent increase in their hydro bills. Now they can know that

once again this government has delivered to them, that it has said to them, 'You

won't have to undergo this kind of an increase.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: But you know, it is also passing strange

that you have the hon. the Member for Menihek speak about how they want to play

the high road, how they want over there not to get into the politics of what has

happened in this Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. members of

this House why such a statement was made a few minutes ago. It is because they

are ashamed of their record when it comes to how that government and how the

present federal government have treated Labrador. That is the reason why there

was no mention of the federal government today. That was the reason there was no

mention of the aspects of legislation and what kinds of moves can be made,

because the fact remains that everybody in Labrador, particularly the people on

the opposite side, when they get up and say that no, this action taken today,

and certainly the constitutional amendment, will not solve all of the problems

of Labrador. Nobody doubts that, but what are the suggestions for solving the

problems? What are the ideas for solving the problems? What are the initiatives

for solving the problems?

Nothing bothers me more than when I hear that sanctimonious

attitude expressed, 'We are not going to play politics; we are not going to

acknowledge the role of the federal government,' who, by the way, have

unequivocal control and jurisdiction over the fishery, which everybody from

L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain, some thirty communities, depend on totally. We are not

going to acknowledge that the federal government has recognized and certainly

contributed in a significant way to the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway,

but it doesn't do so in Labrador.

I can't help pointing out, when there was time for something

to be done for Labrador in transportation, for example, when there was time for

the government of the day in June of 1988 to sign that infamous Roads for Rails

deal, when it was time to demonstrate to the people of Labrador that 'You are

going to be given the funds and given the plan to complete the Trans-Labrador

Highway', when it was time to give us our appropriate share of that $800

million, where was the commitment? Where was the commitment of the hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains, who was in the Cabinet then for some six months?

Well, I guess the commitment is obviously in the results of that particular

agreement.

Now then, in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador - in

an area like Labrador where we do not have any roads connecting any of the

communities from Red Bay to Nain, or connecting the roads from Goose Bay to the

Coast, or connecting the roads from Goose Bay to Churchill Falls, when we don't

have that kind of transportation system, surely the people of this Province look

towards that $800 million, fifteen-year agreement as an opportunity to finally

put in place the funding mechanism to see that road completed. But the people of

Labrador were told in no uncertain terms exactly how they felt about it, exactly

how the previous minister from Labrador felt about it when we had, what was it,

$200 million? Two hundred million dollars I suppose was dedicated to the

Trans-Labrador Highway? No. Was it $100 million? Surely it was one-eighth of it.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

Labrador making up 33 per cent more in land mass than the island part of the

Province, surely when the people of Labrador have 10 per cent of the population,

surely got one-eighth of it, surely we got $100 million?

No. Well, I guess you would have to go down and expect a

modicum of significance to this particular agreement. Surely there would have to

be at least $50 million. Fifty million would be an appropriate allocation I am

sure under the Rails-for-Road deal to try and impact upon the transportation

needs of Labrador. But no, that minister for Labrador stood in this House and

saw his Minister of Transport sign a deal that cast in stone for fifteen years

where Labrador got less than 2 per cent of the funding. They got $9 million over

fifteen years, out of $800 million. That is what we got. That was the record

that people have to recognise, that now we go back to the hon. John Crosbie, the

minister now for Newfoundland.

I am sure the Member for Torngat Mountains was up talking to

them a few weeks ago. I am sure he went up there and said: please forgive me,

now I want to withdraw my support for this agreement. Make sure, he says, that

you send out the signal to Labrador that it is time that we got our justice in

the Rails-for-Roads deal. But no, absolutely not. No more. Mr. Crosbie is

saying: no way, that agreement will not be re-opened. Regardless of what the

hon. member opposite says. Because he knows that that is the real attitude for

the people over opposite.

When the fishery of the coast is so important, and again the

hon. members must acknowledge, it is not politics when I say that the complete

jurisdiction for the fishery is at the federal level. That is not partisanship.

That is what government exists, that is the structure of the government today.

We cannot change that. But surely there was a time when we could change it. A

few years ago the previous government brought in the Resource Short Plant

Program so they could assist plants throughout Newfoundland and Labrador so that

any place that had a failure in the inshore fishery or certainly there was not

enough to extend the season to a reasonable limit, then the Resource Short Plant

Programme was introduced to supplement the season, extend the season.

When it came time to stand up for Labrador, when it came time

to look out for the Nain, the Makkovik, the Cartwright, the Black Tickle, the

Mary's Harbour, the L'Anse-au-Loup, the L'Anse-au-Clair, when it came time to

nail down some twenty-one communities in that Resource Short Plant Programme,

not one plant in Labrador was designated under that program. That is the kind of

record that we have seen from the hon. members opposite.

We have seen a Saltfish Corporation operate in this Province

for the last twenty-two years. We have seen the Labrador part of the Saltfish

Corporation now be the only designated role in Newfoundland and Labrador. But

what do we see now? A complete board of directors that is governing that

Saltfish Corporation without one member from Labrador. Yet 95 per cent of its

clients are in Labrador.

When we look for support for these types of initiatives there

is a deafening silence from the hon. members from Labrador, and indeed the hon.

Opposition Leader and the members of his caucus.

So we are obviously taking forward this initiative in the

light that we have always taken Labrador. Taken it in a very serious manner. We

have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to dealing with the affairs of

Labrador. There is no doubt that there are other areas where the Labrador people

could have gotten tremendous benefit from the previous government, and certainly

today from the hon. John Crosbie.

When we talk about the northern cod stocks or any of the

adjacent offshore stocks to Labrador, whether it be red fish or turbot or

northern cod or the flatfish, when we look at what has been done to see that the

economies of coastal Labrador are furthered, then we have to acknowledge again

complete federal jurisdiction and zero - zero, Mr. Speaker - when it comes to

giving our people a chance to be able to further their economies; to be able to

give the fishermen of Labrador a chance to be able to supplement their income

from a depleted inshore fishery. We have seen their access to northern cod

denied, denied, denied, and all we have seen from the opposite side is silence,

silence, silence. That has not gone unnoticed. That has not gone unnoticed in

Labrador, and that is why, I guess, they will see the message come through again

in the election forthcoming, or by-election before that in Labrador, of exactly

where this government has put its money, where we have made our commitments, and

indeed why we have gotten such approval from the people of Labrador.

When we look at the shrimp fishery on the coast of Labrador

we have seen seventeen shrimp licences issued, and three of them have been

dedicated to Labrador. Three of them have been given to the people of Labrador

although they are totally dependent upon the fishery, directly adjacent to the

fishery, and certainly could reap a tremendous amount of benefits. But when we

have seen the actions of the members opposite we certainly cannot help but

notice that all we get is absolute neglect, absolute silence, when it comes to

getting our issues put on the table in Ottawa.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem standing here today as a

member of this government following up from the acting Premier today and saying,

in no uncertain terms, that we are seeing the Liberal party of the day follow in

the great traditions of the Liberal party of yesterday - the Liberal party of

the Smallwood's and the Roberts' - other notable members that those members

opposite get so paranoid over. Those members opposite get so alarmed when they

see such people of credibility and stature enter into the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They recoil; they go down in fear.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are frightened to death.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They go down in fear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) backing up his letter, boy.

Don't be talking such foolishness.

MR. DUMARESQUE: And they get people withdrawing their

letters. We get people scurrying everywhere. Don't go Garfield; don't go Jim;

don't go Charlie; don't go anybody over there, because if we do then we are

going to suffer the embarrassment again of having Ed Roberts come here! That is

the kind of strategy. They are scared of the record of the Smallwood and the

Roberts' and the other members, and now today the record of this government

under Premier Wells. Those are the kinds of actions that we have seen from the

members opposite.

So there will be no confusion when it comes to the issue of

whether we support changing the name. I might also use this opportunity, as I

said I would originally, to point out to the Member for Torngat Mountains that

the Political Science 101, I suppose you could call it, when it comes to what

actually exists in the Legislature today and what he was trying to do. I suppose

he might not admit it, but I suppose he could acknowledge the reason that the

amendment is there today as it is is because I had gone over and told him how he

had been folly in his first resolution, and how it would not meet his objective,

which I understood. I understood his objective.

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain what 'folly' means now.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How it would certainly embarrass him to

know that even if we had passed the resolution as it was originally worded, it

would have accomplished nothing more than presently exists, and there is nobody

who would dispute that. The Labrador Act is there, the specific mentions. All

the powers of the Legislature were exercised. The complete authority that the

Legislature at the time was there, so that there be no doubt about where we are

coming from and what has happened, and I am sure that the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains now, when he gets up to conclude, will use this opportunity to

repent. I am sure that he will get up and say to the people of Labrador: I am

sorry for signing the Roads-for Rails deal, I am sorry I sold you out on the

Roads-for-Rails deal, I am sorry that I have not gone to John Crosbie and asked

for one director from Labrador on the board of directors for the Saltfish

Corporation. He will use this I am sure to get up and say: I am deeply sorry

that I do not want to have access to the northern cod.

I am sure that he will do that today and retain the honour

that I know he wants to go out with as he exits from this House in the

not-too-distant future. I believe the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains has been

a very meaningful force for the people of Labrador. I am sure that he will not

let them down today to correct the errors of his last ten years and acknowledge

that there has to be a better day, but there have to be some actions forthcoming

from his brothers and sisters in Ottawa.

I am sure that he will call upon them loud and clear, he will

leave no doubt in the minds of Labradorians, that today he stood and challenged

John Crosbie, that he stood and challenged the minister, Jean Corbeil, for a

Roads-for-Rails deal replacement. I am sure he will get up and challenge them to

put it forward. I know our Minister of Transportation has been working

tirelessly to see that done. I am sure that maybe he does not think that the

Torngat Mountains member will get up and say that, but I don't think he should

ever be underestimated in that way. His commitment to Labrador is real. I know

that he was only in cabinet for five or six months at the time he signed the

Roads-for-Rails deal. But certainly I am sure that now that he has gone through

that experience he will repent, he will say he is sorry, he will ask for the

forgiveness of Labradorians on the errors of his ways.

So in conclusion I would just say that I certainly

wholeheartedly support having this change as I have advocated in every public

way previous to this. I would be pleased if I am asked to serve on the committee

to see that the proper constitutional mechanism is found, and I would be pleased

to go throughout this Province and say yes, that we have nothing to be ashamed

of over there when it comes to dealing with Labrador on a fair and balanced

basis, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

pleased today to take

part in the debate on this resoluti