November

1, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 47

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery on behalf of

all members thirty-four students and representatives from the Council of the

Student Union from Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we get to the routine proceedings the

Chair would like to deal with the matter raised yesterday during Question Period

on a Point of Order with regards to comments made by the hon. Member for Mount

Pearl.

I want to draw hon. members attention to Beauchesne Page 143,

Section 486 (1), it says; "It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in

regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular Members, or

to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much

depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person speaking."

Paragraph (2) says, "An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today

does not necessarily have to be deemed unparliamentary next week.

(3) There are

few words that have been judged to be unparliamentary consistently, and any list

of unparliamentary words is only a compilation of words that at some time have

been found to cause disorder in the House." However, Beauchesne is very clear

and specific about the acceptance of the words of a member.

Page 151, Paragraph 494, "It has been formally ruled by

Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly

within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary

temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the

facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissable."

Yesterday the Premier was responding to a question from the

hon. Member from Grand Bank and there was interjection by the Member for Mount

Pearl and the Chair had reserved the ruling so that I could check the Hansard. I

refer to page 1594 of Hansard and 1595.

The Premier, in answering the question said: Mr. Speaker, I

am happy to tell you that the Member for Pleasantville came to me this morning

with the proposal for the resolution, it did not originate with me at all; and

the last paragraph, he says: The suggestion out of Ottawa, was that I should

move the resolution, not that I should not but that I should. I disagreed and

the Member for Pleasantville proposed it.

At that point, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl said: Who do

you think believes that beside yourself? If that is not blatant, I do not know

what is. You know that is not true, and then further he says: You know that it

is not true.

Clearly, what the hon. member said, was that, not only was

the Premier's statement not true, but the Premier knew that it wasn't true. This

is clearly out of order and I ask the hon. member to withdraw the remarks.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, out of respect to yourself, I

will withdraw those remarks however, I must comment, Your Honour, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no debate on the Speaker's ruling. The hon. member

withdrew the remarks and that's the end of the matter.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I withdraw the remarks but I must

comment that the words that I used-

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

MR. WINDSOR: - are quite commonly used across this House

and have been for the last twenty years that I have been here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is out of order.

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I noticed - and I don't expect

the Premier to be here all the time - but I noticed when you got up to rule on

the point of order that there was a contingent of Cabinet ministers who were not

present and, you know, we do plan our Question Period, we do come to the House

prepared for Question Period and when we come in, Mr. Speaker, and I don't

expect it to happen, but I think that ministers have a responsibility and their

schedules should be adjusted as such to be in the House for Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the presence or absence of a member

in the House is not a point of order.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about Quebec and Canadian

unity.

Monday night's Quebec referendum result gives us a reprieve,

perhaps only a short reprieve. Many people believe they have one last chance to

address Quebecers desire for recognition of their distinct society, and for

reforms in the Canadian Federation, if we are to prevent the country from

splitting apart.

Does the Premier recognize the gravity and the urgency of the

situation? Does the Premier accept that he and his government as well as other

governments in the country, have to move quickly to recognize Quebec's distinct

society and to make a new proposal for a workable federation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have been working for some

time. In the last couple of days I have been dealing extensively with these

issues. I will not participate in a debate in this House, in this kind of give

and take in this House, in a way that adversely impacts on the situation. It is

too grave, too important, to all our futures for us to engage in that, and most

of the Premiers and political leaders across the country have said essentially

the same as I have said, and have taken essentially the same position as I have

taken on it, and I intend to continue along that course of action.

The matter is being dealt with. I know some Premiers are

dealing with it and I know of the circumstances in which they are attempting to

deal with it. I have had a discussion and I can only say that all of the

Premiers, to the best of my knowledge, are very sensitive to that, and most of

the Leaders of the Opposition are very sensitive to the seriousness of the

situation and are avoiding taking positions that would tend to inflame it, and I

ask the hon. member to do the same.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the Premier that there is nothing inflammatory

about my simple, straightforward questions. I would suggest that if the Premier

is concerned about inflaming a worrisome situation, he must be thinking about

his unspoken answers. Yesterday, I asked the Premier straightforward questions

about an overture to him from the Prime Minister, or other representatives of

the Federal Government about a federal package along the lines of the Meech Lake

Accord. I specifically asked the Premier about proposals for devolution of

powers to the provinces, about veto power over certain constitutional

amendments, and about recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, and these are

the hard issues.

I ask the Premier now a very simple question: Will he tell

this House of Assembly and the people he represents where he stands on these

issues, these issues that have been outstanding for many years, and these issues

that are now being raised with him by the Prime Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I have not

spoken with the Prime Minister since Monday. I spoke with him on Monday before

the vote was taken and I have not spoken with him since Monday. On Tuesday night

and yesterday morning, speaking to the media on eight or ten occasions, I took

the position, on behalf of the Government of this Province that we would wait

for the Prime Minister to put a process in place to deal with the issue. We

would not engage in a public debate of the components or the different aspects

of it until such time as the Prime Minister had put in place a process for

dealing with it. I do not intend now to carry on this kind of a debate on

individual aspects of it that might well inflame positions and views. I would

again plead with the Leader of the Opposition to put the interests of the

country and the Province first.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, in the past - I'm simply stating a

fact - the Premier has been an obstacle to national reconciliation, and today,

he is seen by many people in Canada as an impediment to maintaining Canadian

unity. Is the Premier willing to change now in response to Canadians' desire for

change?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the total invalidity to that

comment is seen very clearly from the fact that on behalf of the Government of

this Province, I participated with all of the other premiers, the territorial

leaders, the aboriginal leaders and the Prime Minister, to try to achieve a

basis for reconciliation that would be acceptable in all parts of the country. I

struggled with great difficulty to try to achieve that, carried on a campaign

from one end of this country to another to try to persuade Canadians in all

parts of the country to accept the Charlottetown proposal. It wasn't what I

would write if I had the right to write something that would be ideal for the

country, but it was a compromise that I believed, and most of the premiers - or

all of the premiers of the country at the time - believed might well be an

approach that could be acceptable.

I carried on a campaign in this Province to try to get the

proposal accepted. I take some measure of gratification from the fact that the

majority of the people of this Province voted in support of it and said this

Legislature ought to implement a proposal that reflected the Charlottetown

Accord. Only New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and by the very narrowest of

margins Ontario, voted in favour of it. All of the other provinces, including

the Province of Quebec, voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, for the Leader of the Opposition to make that

kind of outlandish statement that she just made is really unforgivable. For her

to use this circumstance to try to inflame public opinion in this way is a

totally unacceptable approach in these difficult circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier and concerns unemployment

insurance. I would like to remind the Premier and others of the fact that

changes in the unemployment insurance program over the last several years will

have the result of having less than half the people who are unemployed in Canada

qualify for UI, and that for those who do qualify, benefits could be reduced by

up to one-half. This is down from 87 per cent of unemployed qualifying in 1990.

Will the Premier acknowledge that his government has, by its

own policies, including the income support program proposed, undermined

government commitment to unemployment insurance and, in effect, sent a signal to

Ottawa that they would not object to a major remodelling of the UI program to

the detriment of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, including fishermen and

seasonal workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the hon.

member has read today's Order Paper or not. He will see that the Member for

Eagle River, I believe, has a resolution on the Order Paper and the issue, no

doubt, will receive extensive debate during that time.

I have to say that the proposition the hon. member put is not

accurate. The government of this Province has been endeavouring to maintain the

maximum possible level of support that we can for the unemployment insurance

income that our people need, particularly our people who have part-time

employment. We are very concerned about the impact on them because so many

people in this Province work to the maximum extent that work is available to

them, and we cannot support changes in the unemployment insurance system that

would adversely affect them, so the hon. member's proposition, I suggest Mr.

Speaker, is without merit.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the first time I recall the Premier even addressing

the issue publicly, and I wonder what efforts he and his government have been

making.

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of Canadian unity, would the

Premier acknowledge that the Separatist cause in Quebec, or the `oui' campaign,

as it were, received a lot of support from people who want to maintain the kind

of Canada that we had,

whereas the P.Q. was able to try to guarantee pensions,

taking it away. Is the Premier prepared to acknowledge that a large part of the

argument and debate in the Quebec referendum had to do with ensuring the kind of

social security that Canadians have come to expect from their Federal

Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't in Quebec and I know

only what I have read in the news media or heard on the electronic media in

terms of the role that played in the referendum campaign in Quebec, so I cannot

acknowledge what he says, although I suspect from what I did hear in the news

media and read in the newspapers that the matter was raised and on occasion the

issue was raised and positions were taken on that. Whether it played a large

part in it or not is more than I can say.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Premier be prepared to use what may be his

reputation across the country for having something to say on Canadian unity

matters to try to build on something that the people of Quebec do want, and that

is to continue the kind of social security that we have in Canada?... instead of

dealing with constitutional issues, talk about preserving the kind of Canada

that Newfoundlanders want to have, with a strong commitment to social security,

social programs, health care, UI and pensions that are important, that the whole

country be a part of, and not diversify in our own ways. Is the Premier prepared

to use his efforts to campaign for that and try to convince the federal Liberals

to change their course?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the two

leaders, you wonder how the reputation - I assume the Leader of the NDP thinks

my reputation might have some influence across the country, and that is why he

is asking me to use it, a marked contrast from the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Let's assume that maybe he is right... if

he is right. The answer is, I, like all other Canadians, want to make sure that

we preserve the essential aspects of our social security system. It is vitally

important to those of us who are not fortunate enough to have employment or

income opportunities that we preserve the fundamentals of our social security

system and our income support system.

But, Mr. Speaker, if he is really asking, am I prepared to

make arguments across the country to maintain the status quo, even though

maintaining the status quo could risk the bankruptcy of the country, the answer

is no. I have a greater dedication to preserving what is essential for our

people than to try to preserve something that may not be sustainable. No matter

how desirable it is, if the country can't financially sustain 100 per cent, then

I am prepared to see it change to 92 per cent if there is a possibility that we

can sustain it at the 92 per cent level rather than have the whole thing at

risk.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board a couple of weeks ago admitted that last year's Budget was all

smoke and mirrors and we have been asking him questions about some of the things

contained in that, specifically, the number of lay-offs and the proposed

cutbacks in the public service. We are finding out that there have been

somewhere in the order of 1100 temporary positions. The minister wasn't sure.

Has the minister yet been able to find out? It has now been three weeks since he

said he couldn't find out, that he was trying to find out from his officials how

many temporary positions there were. Has the minister found out yet, and what

was the cost of those 1100 positions?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't believe that the hon. member quotes me correctly;

nevertheless, I do want to mention to the House that there is a committee of

government at this time working in conjunction with each department to determine

the total number of employees and what their status is. We will report to the

House in due course.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in office

now for three-and-a-half months. What has he been doing for the last

three-and-a-half months, Mr. Speaker, if he hasn't yet been able to find out how

many temporary employees government has hired. This is incredible! We have just

come through a very traumatic and very troubled time financially in Canada.

Would the minister tell us the projected $50 million deficit that we think we

are now facing? The minister, of course, has not been able to find that out

either, to confirm it for us. But assuming the numbers we are using are

accurate, that there is a $50 million deficit projected: how much of that $50

million deficit was due to the troubled economy resulting from the Quebec

referendum? What impact has the minister figured into those projections to

account for the downturn in the economy that would undoubtedly have come from a

`yes' vote two days ago?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, several comments. The minister does know, in

fact, what the deficit is. The minister just hasn't told the hon. member in

response to his questions. The figure is not $50 million. I told him several

weeks ago that we would be reporting to the House sometime, probably during the

month of November. Government is looking at figures, and what, if anything,

needs to be done to change the course at this point in time.

With respect to the Quebec situation, that has had no bearing

on the financial situation of the Province. The general economy of the country

slowed by about 40-odd per cent in the last several quarters and that has

affected equalization across the country to all provinces. I don't think any

person, including Nostradamus, could determine what portion is attributable to

concerns over the Quebec referendum, except to say that the markets have

improved substantially since then, but certainly, in terms of what people were

prognosticating with respect to increases in interest rates and drops in the

value of the dollar haven't materialized, so it hasn't affected our position in

any substantial way.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, at least we got one bit of

information from the minister. He has now admitted that he does know what the

projected deficit is. He is denying that all along, saying it is being studied

and he won't know for four or five weeks, so I suspect the oven is on `bake' in

the Department of Finance now, to come up with a number that is acceptable to

the minister.

It is interesting that we are seeing that coming from the

minister, a lack of information in this regard. Surely, there must be some work

done in the Department of Finance relating to the referendum. Surely, the

minister can't be telling us that he has been sitting here knowing this

referendum was coming, knowing that there was a very real possibility of Quebec

separation, and that the department has not done any numbers. Has the minister

not looked at some of the projections, that economists were saying the Canadian

dollar could probably fall to sixty-five cents, or lower, if Quebec were to

separate?

Is the minister telling the House that he had not factored

any of this in, that he had not done any calculations, and has he done any

calculations now that the referendum is over to see if there is going to be a

positive impact on the $50 million deficit he is projecting for this year, and

what he is looking at for next year? Surely, he must have something done, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the required reading in the

Department of Finance is not Chicken Little. May I say to the hon. member that

we don't predict the sky is going to fall on any particular occasion. What we do

is monitor the markets on a repeated basis, we take careful account of our

financial position, and frankly, the referendum has not affected, in any

substantial way, as I said to the hon. member, the fiscal position of the

Province.

The other factor is that we have known for some time, and we

have had a pretty good indication of what the financial position of the Province

is for this year, and over the next several years. What I have not done is told

the hon. member in the House at this time what that position is, and as I have

indicated to him there is a time and a place when that will be done, but not at

this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, several councils in this Province

have been applying for water and sewer over the years and have not received any

funding, and again this year, have not received any funding. I would like to ask

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs if he can tell me how the

funding is allocated, if it is based on a public draw, if it is done based on

politics, or if it is done based on need.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the easiest way to answer

my hon. colleague is to say it must be based on need because he was probably the

highliner out of the whole fifty-two members in the last two years as it relates

to infrastructure and capital works, so it must be based on need or I would not

have put $3 million or $4 million in his district in the last couple of years.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: If that is the case, it must be based on

politics. I would like to remind the minister as well, that I have the largest

district in rural Newfoundland. If that is the case, then it is based on need.

Government, four years ago, approved $442,000 for the Town of Fox Cove - Mortier

for a water and sewer system. Mr. Speaker, that money was used by the council to

take a water line from the pond to the main highway and install one fire

hydrant. Not one home was hooked up as a result of that $442,000 and that is

four years ago. If it was based on need four years ago to provide water and

sewer to the residents and not one house has since received it, why, can I ask

the minister, have they not?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, I would venture to

say that there are 150 communities in this Province that have basically the same

problems as Fox Cove - Mortier. If I remember correctly, last year the hon.

member lobbied me strongly to provide funding for that particular community. If

I am not mistaken, I may have met them. If I did not meet them, my staff met

them. I believe, based on what the hon. gentleman said, that we gave them

$450,000 or thereabouts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four years ago.

MR. REID: Four years ago.

MR. TOBIN: And not one house hooked up - not one.

MR. REID: Well, it certainly wasn't me four years ago.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I sympathize with the hon.

member, and I sympathize with a lot of my friends on both sides of the House

when they continuously come to me and lobby on behalf of their constituents and

their communities, but when you look at rural Newfoundland - especially rural

Newfoundland - we have hundreds of communities out there even at this very

moment with not a drop of decent drinking water, with poor sanitary conditions

as it relates to water and sewerage, and I sympathize with them. The only

problem I have is that at the end of the day there is only a certain amount of

money to go around, and I can assure the member, and I think he agrees with me,

that over the past two-and-a-half years that I have been in the department, a

fair share of the money has gone to both sides of the House. In fact, this is

the first time I have been questioned with regard to spending money in one area

as compared to another and the reasons for it. I think, on both sides of the

House, we have done fairly well in the last two years of the infrastructure, and

I make the commitment to the hon. member that I will take these people into

consideration again next year if we have a capital works budget, and then the

hon. member can maybe come back and say congratulations to me for a change

rather than criticize me.

Thank you very much.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, we

represented our constituents, unlike what you are doing. I say to the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, it is not a matter of criticizing. It was a

matter of determining that it was based on need, and like the people of Fox Cove

- Mortier and the ninety residents who have their wells gone dry, they are

wondering why it was based on need then and not based on need now. What has

happened to the need in those four years?

Mr. Speaker, the final supplementary on this is that some

families are paying between $1,500 and $2,000 a year taxes on that debt. I would

like to ask the minister if he will consider -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can anyone put a harness or a gag

on that minister there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I would like to ask the minister if he will

consider deferring the payments on that debt for one fire hydrant until such

time as a commitment by this government to provide water and sewer to the

residents.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I make the commitment to you here

today, Sir, that I will provide the hon. member as well as any representatives

of the council from Fox Cove, Mortier to come in and discuss that question and

make a formal request to me as it relates to that particular question. The hon.

member knows that since I have been minister the door has been open to both

sides of this House. In every particular case I have tried to do my best. I will

listen to Fox Cove, Mortier in regards to their complaint. Bring them in and

that would be the place for me to deal with it as the minister rather than have

to deal with an individual council, one of 500 that I have to deal with on a

daily basis. The invitation is there, Mr. Member, and call me up and I will

provide you the time to discuss that particular question only too gladly.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. As the minister just said, there

are about 150 communities that were refused funding for infrastructure; Fox

Cove, Anchor Point, River of Ponds, Little Catalina, the list goes on and on.

Residents in these towns must continue to live with inadequate water and/or

sewer services. In many cases they must continue to pay taxes for incomplete

systems. Can the minister inform the House today how many towns, if any, were

given approval and accepted financial liability for water and/or sewer systems

for residents who were not living within that communities municipal boundaries?

Would the minister sign his approval giving community A permission to accept

liability for services placed in community B?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the answer. He has

asked me a question and he must be referring to, Mr. Speaker, a particular

community in the Province and I honestly cannot answer his question here right

now. I will answer it tomorrow morning. In fact, I will provide you with the

opportunity tomorrow morning at 8:30 to meet with my staff and we will give you

the answer. I cannot answer the question. The only thing that I can say is that

communities have, in the last five years, adopted a policy and the government

has adopted a policy whereby if you are not in the local planning area then

money cannot be provided to you. Now if we made an exception to that - maybe the

hon. member is referring to the Terra Nova Lodge. I don't know what he is

referring to and I am not going to speculate on that but I will find the

information. So I am saying, Mr. Speaker, I don't know the answer right now, I

am sorry.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can

inform the House as to the date on which Muddy Cove was annexed into the town of

Port Blandford?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: So it is Terra Nova Lodge, Mr. Speaker. Now let

me answer that question, Muddy Cove is not in Port Blandford. As far as I know

Muddy Brook is not in the town of Port Blandford but Terra Nova Lodge is.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I refer to

Section C, page 4 of

The Packet and that was on October 23, giving notice of intent of a

feasibility study under the minister's signature that would have the effect, of

course, of incorporating the community of Muddy Cove into Port Blandford. So

therefore at this time, the minister is right, the community is not now in the

town of Port Blandford and of course this is to cover the legalities and keep

his commitment to Terra Nova Park Lodge. He must now force the community of

Muddy Cove to be annexed to Port Blandford. Is the minister not concerned about

this type of forced amalgamation to make matters legal, to make them right, he

must now force a community to join another?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. In order for

Port Blandford to run water and sewage to their part of the town they have to go

under a road that happens to be outside their town, to service a portion of

their particular community. On the way along, they are going to offer the

services of water and sewer to a number of residences that are not in the town.

In order for them to recover the cost or the share of providing those services

to those particular houses, they are asking that I, as the minister, include

that particular

section of Muddy Hole, I think it is called or whatever

AN HON. MEMBER: It is called Muddy Brook.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to follow the

process whereby we will be holding public hearings in the area. If people from

Muddy Brook, Mr. Speaker, are not in favour of joining with Port Blandford, they

will have the opportunity to tell me and I guess tell The Packet , because

that's where the hon. member read this, to tell The Packet as well as

myself, that they don't want to be part of the Town of Port Blandford, but I am

led to believe, Mr. Speaker, that they have already requested that because the

Town of Port Blandford is providing services to these people that they have not

had and I think, to be quite honest about it, most people there, when they know

that they are going to get decent drinking water now and adequate water and

sewer services, they will probably, and I note probably, want to join with Port

Blandford because, Mr. Speaker, Port Blandford is becoming one of the tourism

destination sites in this Province.

Thank you very much.

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

Kenmount, a final supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the

services include sewer services only; the community will not get water services.

That, I guess is the next phase.

However, Mr. Speaker, in the same issue of The Packet ,

the Mayor of Port Blandford states, and I quote: Mayor Penney explained that the

area is not now incorporated but once the sewer services are installed, it will

become part of the incorporated Town of Port Blandford.

Now, Mr. Speaker, therefore the feasibility study, the

process the minister talks about is nothing other than a sham, an insult to the

good people in Muddy Brook who have been asked to go through something on which

a decision has already been made.

Is the minister not concerned about the process and is he not

really, fundamentally insulting the dignity of the people of Muddy Brook?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

time for a quick answer.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not concerned with it

because the process that has been in place now for the past fifteen, twenty

years that was introduced by his colleagues on the opposite side of the House

with regards to public hearings is still in place.

I find it quite amusing though, Mr. Speaker, because when the

hon. member was a one-time Mayor of Mount Pearl and the whole question arose on

the question of the area called Newtown, when he was mayor he wanted to go in

and annex the whole community, and basically told the people of Mount Pearl that

these people have nothing to say to this, we are going to take this and we are

going to do it; so, is the pot calling the kettle black here, Mr. Speaker, I

wonder.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to

section 35 of the medical care insurance act I'm please to table the annual

report of the Newfoundland Medical Care Commission for the year ended March 31

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

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a report

from the division of family and rehabilitative services, Department of Social

Services, for 1994-1995.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a written

answer to a question posed by the Member for Grand Falls two days ago for the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but it is in the jurisdiction of

the Department of Environment.

The question posed was regarding a fire that occurred near

the Trans-Canada Highway near Glovertown, a gas station that had burnt down. The

owner of that property has been served with two ministerial orders as of July 11

1995: one, to remove all underground storage tanks, and two, to remove all scrap

metal and other waste material left as a result of destruction by fire of the

former Parkway Esso. The deadline of thirty days applies to both orders as

provided for in the respective legislation.

The owner of the property has filed notice of appeal for both

orders. It is now before the courts awaiting a date. As soon as the courts deal

with it we would hope that the owner of the property will have it cleaned up

shortly. The necessary action has been taken. We are just waiting the court date

to get it settled. Thank you.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition on behalf of sixty-two residents of the community of Branch

in St. Mary's Bay. The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

To the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador:

Whereas the Janeway Child Health Centre has served

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their children for more than

twenty-five years as the only acute care children's hospital, and

whereas the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador show their support for the Janeway by

contributing millions of dollars every year to enhance the services provided by

the children's hospital, we the undersigned support the continuation of a stand

alone children's hospital to provide quality health care for the children of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to stand and present this

petition on behalf of the people of Branch. Over the past several months I have

had calls from my district, enquiries from my district, concerning the planned

closure of the Janeway Hospital and relocation thereof. People are very

concerned about the plans that government has as it relates to the Janeway and

therefore they are starting to send along some petitions from different parts of

the district. I think this is the second one I have had the opportunity to

present here on behalf of residents of my district. There are other ones that

are following it.

The people of the district are very concerned that the plans

for the Janeway Hospital will not provide the services that are provided at the

Janeway now, and at the level they are provided. As everybody knows, the Janeway

Hospital is known and seen as a provincial hospital. It is not a city hospital

here in St. John's. It is seen as a provincial hospital that many people

throughout the Province have been proud of over the past number of years and

have definitely had - I would care to make a comment that there are very few

families in this Province which have not had some reason over the years to avail

of the services that are available at the Janeway Hospital.

You see over the past couple of years, and indeed for the

past number of years, the fund-raising efforts that have been put in place

across this Province as it relates to raising funds to bring forward and to more

or less improve on what the Janeway Hospital has to provide, the machinery that

has been bought through fund-raising efforts across this Province. Millions of

dollars that have been raised to provide quality health care and to provide the

tools for the job for the people who work in that hospital. I myself and several

others I know in this hon. House have partaken in the fund-raising efforts of

the Janeway Child Health Centre.

Back a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, a little over five years

ago now when my own first son was born we had, for reasons of health, to rush

him to the Janeway Hospital. I have to say without hesitation that the service

that was provided by the doctors, nurses, nursing assistants and other staff,

and indeed volunteers at the hospital for the number of days that we had to

spend there with our first-born, was second to none. The people down at the

hospital put their total effort into providing quality health care and without a

doubt there is a great feeling for the children within the hospital. It is a

children's hospital in every sense of the word, and the children feel very much

at home, as I'm sure most of the parents that avail of that hospital do.

Back through the years we can see where the hospital has been

known for the great services they have provided; indeed, many of the miracles

that have been accomplished by the staff at that hospital. I believe that the

government's plan to strip the hospital of its individuality will not fare well.

There are plans to move the site now, to adjoin it to the Health Sciences

Centre. I think it will take away that special identity that the Janeway Child

Health Centre holds in this Province. Indeed, many people are concerned about

the future of the Janeway as a children's hospital, the fact that it is being

amalgamated into the major hospital of the Health Sciences Centre.

With those concerns I'm pleased to present this petition on

behalf of the people of Branch. I hope that the minister takes into account the

issues that have been brought forward not only by myself but indeed by many

people in the general public, the concerns of moving the Janeway from its

present location on a stand alone basis and the joining with the Health Sciences

Centre. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

speaking to the petition?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support

the petition presented by my colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes. I've numerous

concerns about statements that were made recently, since back in July, late

June, when there was an announcement that the Janeway Hospital would be closing.

Statements by executive positions of the Health Care Corporation of St. John's

and by the Minister of Health that are contradictory statements that are not

going to solve the problems as they are presented with the closure of the

Janeway Hospital.

On that day that the announcement was made - and I indicated

that I would support any type of consolidation that is not going to take away

from the quality of service that we are going to get, that is going to be able

to use dollars that are used in maintenance and other costs, and to be able to

keep them within the system. I can support that. Because health care has to be

funded on an economic basis. The dollars have to be most efficiently used.

I have concerns that have been raised recently. The Minister

of Health in this House indicated Wednesday before last, he said in this House,

that the Janeway Hospital, when the site moves, there is going to be a sharing.

He mentioned specifically two areas, MRIs and operating rooms. I say to this

House, how can we reduce and share operating rooms in these new facilities when

there are twenty-four operating rooms in the city today - there are surgeries

being cancelled on an ongoing basis because there is no operating room space.

When the Janeway and the Grace Hospital close we will have fourteen operating

rooms. So to reduce from twenty-four to fourteen, and we are going to share

operating space with kids and adults. We are going to ration out the future

health of our kids in line with adults in an institution that was told by this

minister and by the executive director of the Health Care Corporation that it

would be a separate, stand alone facility.

Sharing of an MRI, yes. We only have one MRI. Blood work is

done in a centralized location, administration from a centralized location. I

can live with many areas of service that are not going to impact upon the direct

quality of health care that a person is receiving. Sister Elizabeth Davis stated

on September 28 that there may now be a shortage of operating rooms in this

city. For the minister to say we are going to share and we are only going to

have - unless he gives a commitment - I asked him before in this House on more

than one occasion if he will give a commitment to ensure that there will not be

a reduction in operating rooms in this city because of a consolidation of the

Janeway and the Grace with the Health Sciences and St. Clare's. I think that is

a commitment that we need to have from this minister.

It was stated back earlier it would not be. Now, on a stand

alone basis... Back at that time when that announcement was made there was no

commitment even to build a new facility for the Janeway Hospital. Over a week,

or a week-and-a-half later, after much public outcry and criticism, Mr. Tilley,

an executive vice-president, indicated on CBC one morning, the first indication

that anything was going to happen, that there would be an extension or some type

of new space to be able to accommodate the Janeway Hospital on that site, and I

agree there should be - I think it is the proper step - but we have been

receiving contradictory statements, and people are worried that their kids may

have to get in line with long waiting lists now for adults to get surgery that

is needed, and that is a growing concern.

Now I want to see dollars saved in the system as much as the

minister wants to see dollars saved in the system. I do not want to see one

dollar of duplication within the system, and if there are efficiencies I will

support them, but I have not seen from this government how - and maybe we will

see it in due course; he indicated near the end of this year we will see it, and

I am waiting anxiously to see that - the Janeway moving, how we will see what

the total cost of that new structure is, based on the financing charges for that

new structure, and how much we are going to save in operational costs by closing

that particular site. If that cost is greater, if the cost of maintaining it is

greater than consolidating it there, I will support it if we are not going to

have a deterioration of services there. I will be one of the first out to

support it. I am looking with optimism that we are going to have a few extra

million dollars in the system used for service rather than administrative costs.

I have seen a growing bureaucracy. We have seen an increase in public relations

staff with the corporation. We have seen an increase in public relations staff

with other health agencies recently, that I will not get into. We have seen an

increase in public relations and administration, and I do not want to see a

growing bureaucracy under our Health Care Corporation, I say to the minister. I

think we need to control it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I just want to say a few words, most of which I have said

before in this House - and outside of the House, I might add - with respect to

the issue of the reorganization of the institutional-based services in the city.

Many of the points that have been raised in the petition

presented by my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes and referred to by the

Member for Ferryland have already been addressed. I can only basically reiterate

for the record and say again what I have said on so many other occasions. First

of all, we are not closing the Janeway Hospital; we are not closing the Grace

Hospital, if you refer to these institutions as services being provided by the

operations down there and over there. What we are doing is moving the programs

from the buildings that they are now delivered in under the names that are now

over the door called `Janeway' and `Grace', to new space at a new site adjacent

to, joined to, contiguous with, the present General Hospital Health Sciences

Complex. We are not in a process of diminishing the level of programming that is

being provided. We are not about reducing the amount of O.R. space or time that

is going to be in the new system. The counting of O.R. studios is no different

than the counting of hospital beds. If you are going to use that as a measure of

health care, then you are missing the point completely.

I said to the member the other day, there is no difference in

operating an O.R. studio for sixteen hours a day, one studio, than it is

operating two studios for eight hours a day, each, and we have all kinds of

latitude within the system to better utilize not only the space we have, but the

equipment we have and the personnel that we have running these services.

The Janeway will be retained as a service. The Janeway

programs will be enhanced as services are being provided. The concept of

bringing the continuum of care for newborns and paediatrics onto one site and

under one arrangement is what this is about. The member just has to reflect on,

I would say, what is happening in other jurisdictions. If he looked no further

then Halifax, I am not sure but I believe the IKW Children's Hospital there is

adjacent to the main tertiary care hospital in Halifax.

I am interested in the hon. member's comments from Ferryland.

He seems to be consistently agreeing with Sister Elizabeth but he consistently

wants to try and come across as disagreeing with what she is doing. Now I don't

know how he is agreeing with her if he is disagreeing with what she is doing in

the health care system because her relationship to this is that of the chief

operating officer of the health care corporation. I appreciate the level of

support really, that I find from the Member for Ferryland because he keeps

saying that I agree that we have to rationalize, I agree that we have to spend

our money better, I agree that we have to deliver the programs that we are

delivering now and probably enhancing those programs but I am not sure that I

agree with the way in which the government intends to see it done or the way in

which Sister Elizabeth is articulating it will happen. Let me assure him again

that at the end of the day the move of the Janeway and Grace to the Health

Science site will serve the people of the Province better, just as the moving of

the H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Clinic is serving the people of the Province better

as a result of that move to the Health Science site.

I don't think there is one person, who receives cancer care

in this Province today or has had the opportunity to even visit the new cancer

clinic at the Health Science site, would not agree that there is a better level

of service in a more appropriate setting being provided. The principle of what

we are doing with moving the Janeway and Grace over to that site is identical in

concept and will achieve the same result as the move of the cancer clinic to

that site has achieved. That is a more appropriate location, providing a higher

level of service in a more efficient manner and serving the people of this

Province better than they are presently being served. Even if we did not do

this, Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are that we would have to spend

considerable amounts of money in capital just to refurbish and maintain the

building, the old base hospital that is now the Janeway and the Grace Hospital

which is seventy-five years old, or at least parts of it are.

So we are going to have to spend capital dollars regardless.

Even if we were not moving anything anywhere we would have to spend considerable

capital dollars -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - to do what we are doing and I trust

that this will again enforce, in the speakers mind, the correctness of what we

are doing.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon.

friend for the straight line but I will pass on this occasion.

Your Honour, we seem to have trouble getting off Motion 4. We

spent the last few weeks on Motion 4 and it is Motion 4 today but it is a

different Motion 4, the one standing in the name of my friend from Eagle River.

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

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

am pleased to introduce the following resolution;

WHEREAS the unemployment insurance account is funded solely

by employer and employee payroll deductions and;

WHEREAS revenue has exceeded expenditures in recent years and

the fund is projected to be self supporting in the future and;

WHEREAS this program is vital to the income security of

thousands of our people who are seasonally employed;

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse the

government's position that seasonal workers not be treated any differently then

others who access the program.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important resolution to me. One

of the obviously main reasons is that I represent a district in this Province -

not unlike many other districts in the Province - where there is a significant

level of seasonal employment. Mr. Speaker, the other reason it is very important

to me is because I am very concerned about what is happening in Ottawa today. I

am very concerned about what is happening with the focus of the debate on the

unemployment insurance program. We have listened to many people in the Reform

Party, in particular, who believe that this program should be eliminated

altogether. I have listened to one of the members of the Reform Party in

particular, who is trying to make out that the problems of the deficit in the

country are being caused by those people who have been drawing UI and

particularly fishermen and plant workers in Eastern Canada. It always seems to

be a convenient scapegoat those days to identify people on UI as a substantial

reason for our deficit.

I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, indicating to this hon.

House that nothing could be further from the truth, in my view. The program as I

stated in my

Whereas to the main resolution says that: This is a totally funded

program by employees and employers and that has been the way it has functioned

since 1990. There has not been a cent of tax dollars transferred to that fund

and neither will there be in the future, simply because it is set up under

legislation to operate at arm's length of government and it is through the

payroll deductions that all those would qualify for unemployment insurance, have

the deductions taken out of their pay cheques every week, and so the employer

then remits one-and-a-half times that for their part of the funding of this

program.

It is totally in the hands of an arm's length organization

that is dealing with the payments as they come in, or the requests as they come

in from people who file claims, and while the program in previous years did not

make any money, the fund itself was in a deficit particularly in 1991 and 1992

when there was a significant recession in the country and the payments of

course, the premiums are set up on the basis that this will be a balance but the

recession saw some 50,000 people a month for some number of months in Ontario,

go on to the UI account which nobody expected and this caused the deficit in

that particular account to go up significantly.

However, last year there was a surplus of some $2.4 billion

in that account and the federal government has already announced that they are

going to be keeping the premiums at the same level that they are now, and the

federal Minister of Finance has already indicated to the country that on the

basis of these premiums, this particular fund will be $5 billion in surplus by

the end of 1996-97 and that surplus means, Mr. Speaker, that they will have paid

off every cent that that fund owes and they will have covered every part of the

deficit that that fund now has, and that there will be some $5 billion in that

particular account by the end of 1996-97 fiscal year so, Mr. Speaker, I am

troubled by the fact of what we are hearing and now we haven't seen anything in

legislation.

I understand the Minister of Finance has requested the

Minister of Human Resources Development to come forward with a program to

achieve a $1.9 billion reduction in that account over the next fiscal year; we

have obviously heard on the public airways that there are some proposals being

put forward which really will have quite a significant effect on my people and

on people throughout this Province simply because they depend on the UI fund as

a vital source of income, and, Mr. Speaker, one of the most troublesome parts of

the reforms that were put out in the form of a White Paper in the standing

committee on Human Resources Development, heard submissions from it across the

country.

One of the most troubling parts about it is that, they have

indicated they wanted to have a two-tier system where, the people who were

getting income or repeaters I guess, people who were getting on UI year after

year, would all of a sudden be classified in another

section of the UI fund and

punished for being repeaters and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a terribly

mean-spirited initiative. Either it is completely mean-spirited or it is done

with total ignorance of reality and, Mr. Speaker, I say total ignorance of

reality because this UI fund is essential to places in this Province and

certainly, the Coast of Labrador is a very clear example of how this cannot work

and if people in Ottawa or if people in other parts of Canada are feeling that

way, I have not heard it. I have done a bit of travelling in the country and

have raised this issue in other parts of the country, but I do not believe that

there is any ground swell of support, or any ground swell of demand, from

Central Canada, Western Canada, or anywhere else, that says simply because you

live in a certain part of the country you should be penalized because you cannot

earn a living.

Mr. Speaker, in my district, of course, we have a seasonal

fishery, not by our choosing because if we could have a fishery, whether it be

scallops, crab, salmon, turbot, shrimp, or the cod when it does come back, if we

could do it twelve months of the year people would do it twelve months of the

year, but the simple fact of life is that every October or November the ice

comes, the snow comes, the ice sets in, and there is a total freeze-up until May

or June. It was only in 1991 when there was a total freeze-up and ice

compensation was kept in place for the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, all the

coast of Labrador, and the north coast of Quebec for fourteen weeks, from July

15 until August 20. There was ice in the harbours in these particular areas of

our Province and obviously people could not go and earn income from the fishery.

There is a move in Ottawa, and it is aided and abetted by those who want to

mislead the public, that these people are terrible abusers of the program and

must be punished, and that is wrong. People are not abusing the program. They

are carrying on their life as they always did and it is not only pertaining to

the fishery.

The tourist industry in my riding is no different than in any

other riding in this Province. The tourism industry is a seasonally based

industry. We are always making initiatives and we are making some progress,

particularly in the West Coast area, I guess, with Marble Mountain and the White

Hills. There are other things being done in tourism development to try to extend

tourism beyond the summer season, trying to get the adventure tourist to come

and participate in our wonderful winters and be able to do the adventure tourism

initiatives that are being planned, but that is very much in the primitive

stages and certainly we are nowhere near the point where we are able to have a

year round tourism industry.

That is a fact of life, that people who work in the

restaurants, people who work in the tourist chalets, people who work in the

hotels and motels across this Province, and the same thing in Prince Edward

Island or anywhere else in Canada, are restricted to twelve, fourteen, sixteen,

or eighteen weeks a year. People who are doing that are not doing it because

they say, okay, this is an opportunity where I can work for twelve weeks and

then get unemployment insurance. They are not doing it for that. People are

doing that because in many cases it is a family business and this is what they

have put their savings into, this is what they built, and this is why they want

to return to it every year.

It is certainly not fair to say to them, now you must be

classified in a different

section of the Unemployment Insurance Act and be

demeaned by that process, not to mention the fact that you will have your

unemployment insurance benefits reduced simply because you are in this industry.

We have a small forest industry right now and we hope to

extend on that significantly, but in the Port Hope Simpson - Cartwright area we

are building a forestry industry and indeed the same thing applies there. The

construction trades and the construction industry is also a seasonally based

industry and all told I would expect that there are a significant number of

people, well over 100,000 people in this Province with a workforce of 200 and

some odd thousand that are working in a seasonally based industry. If we are

going to have changes to this program that tells those people that you are going

to have, first of all, to wait for twenty weeks until you qualify for

unemployment insurance; and if you then qualify you are only going to get 50 per

cent of what you made, and you are only going to be able to get one week for

every week that you worked, then I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker,

that we are going to make a very bad situation for the taxpayers of this

Province, namely, the people who have to pay taxes to pay out social services.

Because that is the only place where thousands of our people will be forced to

go if this type of initiative is put in place.

I have heard recently that the minister has indicated the

two-tiered system is not on. It may not be on in the actual concept of a

two-tiered system, but I guess a rose by any other name is still a rose. If you

are going to say that you still have to wait twenty weeks to qualify and you are

still going to have those reduced benefits if you happen to be doing that every

year, then that will be exactly the same thing as having a two-tiered system.

So be honest, I say to those people who are contemplating

this. At least tell us up straight if that is the mentality that is there and we

can deal with it on its own merits. But it is wrong, in my view, to do that. It

is wrong because people have chosen to live in this particular part of our

nation, and obviously, nobody in Canada that I've heard, nobody in the Federal

Government, has indicated that they are now prepared to release sovereignty over

the Coast of Labrador, or to release sovereignty from the northern part of

Canada. So if you are not prepared to do that, then there must be a program put

in place to provide income support for people who live there, because they can't

earn it through no fault of their own. That is all we are asking for.

If somebody wants to do the other thing and say: You

shouldn't be living there anymore, and say: We are going to relinquish

sovereignty over this particular part of our nation simply because it doesn't

meet the economic model that many people want to put in place in this country,

well, say it. But don't try to come through the back door and drive people out

of those places because they cannot survive, they will not be able to survive,

on a program of this nature. Let's be fair and honest about it.

The other thing, as I said, that really bothers me about this

is that people believe that this is going to somehow help the deficit, that the

program is going to be reduced. That isn't fair either. Because there isn't one

cent of money now that is being spent on this program being released to cover

off the deficit, neither would it be legal, in my view, to do that, and neither

should it. No, this is an employee-employer based system and it should remain

that way. If there is a deficit, then that deficit obviously can be paid back on

its own basis with the revenue that is coming in to that particular fund. There

is no need in the future to go back to the same people and expect them to be

taken out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I will have more to say on what we want

to do in the future in the fifteen minutes that I will have left at the end.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Because we aren't saying there should be

absolutely no change.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I will put forward some of our ideas for

change, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the

resolution as well, and say that I can understand some of what the hon. member

is saying. At the same time, when he talks about the harsh treatment of people

in this Province by the UI program, I find it difficult that he would be

contemplating running on a ticket for the party in Ottawa that is prepared to

scuttle the UI system in this Province. Now, the member can't have it both ways,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Don't you worry about me, my son!

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Don't you worry about me.

MR. TOBIN: Don't worry about you?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I'm not going to run for anybody who is

going to scuttle the people of my Province. If you think that, you're silly.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he should resign right now. He is

part of a government that has cut, slashed and chopped every person. They have

even attacked the sick, the suffering and the poor, I say to the member.

The member can't get up here and shout and bawl because he

wants to take a platform to get involved in federal politics and cut the legs

out of the crowd that he wants to run for, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is that

the Liberal Government in Ottawa is insensitive, uncaring, and callous when it

comes to treating people in the poorer province, and particularly people who

depend upon the UI system.

I raised questions in the House last week about the UI

system, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Now, the Member for Eagle River

talks about the government that is cutting. Let me just briefly take you through

some statistics. In 1992, for example, the regular UI benefit in this Province

was $884 million: from fishing $95 million, maternity/paternal sickness $23

million, training income support $48 million, training purchases of courses $25

million, other developmental uses $21 million, for a total of $1,096,000,000 -

$1.1 billion approximately in 1992.

Now with the unemployment in this Province heavily

increasing, and statistics prove it, while there is everything increasing, in

1995 regular benefits were down from $884 million in 1992 to $475 million;

fishing was down from $95 million to $51 million; maternity was $23 million in

1993, $22 million in 1994, and $21 million. Maternity leave was down, I say to

the member opposite. Training was $48 million in 1992. It went to $53 million in

1993, $54 million in 1994, and $48 million in 1995.

MR. WOODFORD: It was cut in half.

MR. TOBIN: Cut in half, yes.

When you add all of that up, it has gone from $1.1 billion in

1992 to $645 million in 1995, almost cut in half, and the Member for Eagle River

says he would not be part of supporting a government or run for a government

that wouldn't cut. Well, here is a government that has cut the UI system in this

Province from $1.1 billion to $645 million, and they did that while that

minister sat in his seat and said absolutely nothing for the people of this

Province, has refused to stand up and fight for the Newfoundlanders who depend

upon that system. That is what is happening in this Province today. In fact, the

federal minister has been doing exactly what he wants to do, having balanced his

budget in terms of social reform, and this government and this minister have sat

idly by and watched it being slashed, chopped, and cut up from $1.1 billion in

1992 to $645 million today.

Now, the minister is going to get up, as he did yesterday,

and say that I am confused, that I am talking about calendar years instead of

fiscal years. What does it matter if it is a calendar year or a fiscal year? The

fact of the matter is that they have cut it almost in half, and I say to the

minister that this is very serious and it is time that you and your colleagues

went to Ottawa and took on Lloyd Axworthy, not go up to Lloyd Axworthy and sit

down and have a cup of coffee, or something like that, over the meeting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Or a drink - it doesn't matter. The bottom

line is that you have to stop cozying up to this minister.

When John Crosbie was the federal minister, every day you

were over there ranting and roaring, when he did absolutely nothing in

comparison to what this government is doing, absolutely nothing in terms of cuts

to what this government is doing. Why the silence on this issue? Why has the

government not been more forthright? Why have they not indicated to the federal

minister that this will never, never be accepted in this Province, the way he is

trying to slash the social programs, the way he is going to treat the UI system

in this Province. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that anywhere in this resolution

will you find reference made to the Federal Government - `an employer/employee

funded solely from payroll deductions. The fund is projected to be self-

supporting in the future and the program is vital to income security. Therefore,

be it resolved that the House of Assembly endorse the government's position that

seasonal workers not be treated any different from any others who access the

program.'

Mr. Speaker, why did the Member for Eagle River wimp out and

not lay the responsibility where it should be, squarely on the shoulders of the

federal minister, the one who was trying to slash and cut this program, who was

trying to bring the people who depend on this program to their knees. We see

what happened a few weeks ago, when the federal minister wanted to cut the TAGS

program, made the big announcement they were going to cut the TAGS program two

weeks before Christmas. Did anyone see the minister standing up? The Member for

Eagle River, Mr. Speaker, did he say anything? Did the Minister of Fisheries -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Roger Simmons is taking credit for it

down our way. I don't know who is taking credit for it this way. Mr. Speaker,

the last time that minister was in Ottawa and met with the federal minister

there was the biggest racket that you could ever think about in the caucus and

the Cabinet. I have been told that the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture went to the Premier and asked him: `Who is the Minister of

Fisheries, is it me or the Member for Eagle River?' The Premier had to tell

`Danny' to stay

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I share the views of the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology that the Member for Eagle River would be, by far,

the better minister.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He didn't say that!

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I asked: Who is the best minister?...

and you pointed at him.

AN HON. MEMBER: I said he went up to Ottawa and

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I asked: Who is the real

Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of ITT pointed at the Member for Eagle

River. And so you should, because let there be no doubt - there is no doubt in

my mind and I don't think in the minds of anyone over here, that the Member for

Eagle River would be, by far, a better minister than the present one that we

have - no doubt about that. But then, having said that, the Member for Eagle

River, Mr. Speaker, would still not measure up to a lot of ministers who sit

opposite, and most of them are not much good.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River brought in his

resolution, I don't know at who's encouragement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that we are

here today debating unemployment insurance for the poor people of this Province

who depend upon the program, and at the same time, we are debating two

millionaire lawyers who have no interest in the UI system, no matter how hard

they may try to impress upon people that they are concerned about it, have no

interest in the system, Mr. Speaker, who sit down and totally ignore the debate

that is taking place regarding UI in this Province. Now, that is the reflection,

Mr. Speaker, of the two millionaire lawyers who pretend that they are concerned

about social programs in this Province but yet refuse to listen or participate

in the debate. Now, it would be better if they would go on and practice law full

time, Mr. Speaker, and leave the needs of the social programs to those who

understand it, who live with it, who have family members living through it and

knows what goes on, I would say to members opposite. And if they want to talk

law, Mr. Speaker, let them go out through the door and debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got that off your chest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) got a ride.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want one from

either of them.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Member for Eagle River, in

putting forward this resolution, chooses not to include the Federal Government's

name anywhere, because they are the ones who will take the knife to this

program. Lloyd Axworthy, Mr. Speaker, Axworthy, supported by axe-Murphy, they

are the ones who will chop this program to pieces. Axworthy and axe-Murphy will

chop this program up for Newfoundlanders, that's what I say to members opposite.

I have not heard a word, Mr. Speaker, from the - I was asking

earlier, before I was sidetracked by the lawyers trying to count their money -

MR. ROBERTS: After we (inaudible) money.

MR. TOBIN: No, you wouldn't have much to count because I

am an honest worker and every day's work was an honest day's work, Mr. Speaker,

and like everyone in that category, I have no money, unless you won the 6\49.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this minister and this government

have not been forceful, have not stood up for the rights of Newfoundlanders,

have not defended Newfoundlanders when it came to the TAGS Program. And Roger

Simmons, the federal M. P. came out and said: I am convinced that the Minister

of Fisheries listened to me when I suggested that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Roger Simmons said: I suggested to the

minister that it should be spread out over a period of time - not take it two

weeks at a time but spread it out over twelve months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he (inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: I know where he is going to be the member for

after the next federal election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought it was Earle McCurdy

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, no, no. Roger said that he went to the

minister and he got the Federal Government to agree to spread it out, but the

fishermen's reaction was, you know, so what? So what, twelve? If you are going

to take two weeks, take two weeks; whether it is over ten weeks, two weeks or

twelve months, you are still robbing our money. Mr. Speaker, that's what he

said.

MR. DUMARESQUE: And we changed that.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there was not a whimper from any

member opposite, including the Member for Eagle River, who is now trying to get

up and get into Rompkey's seat. And I wouldn't go so far as to say that he would

do it any cost, like some ministers over there who were not present to get into

Cabinet. I am not saying that he would go to the same extent as some of them but

I will say that the Member for Eagle River would go a long ways to cover up all

of this, and I am sure he is going to say to Lloyd Axworthy and Brian Tobin,

when he sees `Brian' one of these days, if he can get through to him - well, he

would get through to him because he is in the Premier's Office and probably

answers some of the calls; when Brian is having a chat with `Clyde', probably

`Danny' intercepts some of the calls.

You know, on second thought, maybe `Brian' had some input

into this resolution. I know he had a lot of input into the last one we debated

in this House, when he dictated who could speak.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) you are coming.

MR. TOBIN: Well, that is not something either of us will

promise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, leave for a minute?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much.

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, isn't there supposed to be some

sort of an indication as to how much time you have left when you are speaking in

debate before you are abruptly adjourned?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am serious about this. I can say to the

government that I have been around here for a few years. I always thought that

you were given a three-minute notice or a one-minute notice. I didn't receive

any. To the practice that I've been around, Mr. Speaker, in the fourteen years

that I've been in the House, that was always given, and today I didn't receive

it.

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There

is no requirement in the rules. The Clerks at the Table often, as a courtesy,

will let a member know that he or she has only two or three minutes left. But

one of the reasons we have these clocks -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - set in the gallery opposite each side of

the House - the clocks are set antiphonally because the House sits antiphonally

- is so that members can raise their eyes to heaven not simply for inspiration

but to look at the time. There is no rule, I say to my hon. friend, although as

a practice or as a courtesy, the Clerks often - but my friend speaks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman couldn't get unanimous

consent. I said `aye' but I was overruled by some of my colleagues.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the minister, the Chair

rules that there is no point of order. The member took advantage of the

opportunity just for clarification.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to first of all say how impressed I am with the Member

for Burin - Placentia West, at his enthusiasm on behalf of the people of the

Province, and all the other things that he had to say today. I know it comes

from his heart and I enjoyed his speech, I enjoyed his comments, the same

comments that I have heard over and over and over again. However, let me say it

is a privilege for me to stand up this afternoon to say a few words in agreement

with the resolution put forward by my colleague, the Member for Eagle River.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to say, over the last

year how hard we have worked on behalf of the people of this Province in our

discussions with Minister Axworthy and other federal officials, including our

own Minister Tobin, respecting not only UI but really dealing with the UI

problem.

It is not a fault of the people of this Province that many of

them are classified as seasonal workers. Some eight or nine months ago we heard

that the Federal Government were talking about UI reform, and in the same

sentence, were talking about a two-tiered system: one for those who are

fortunate enough to be able to work for fifty-two weeks in a year, and another

group which, through no fault of its own, whether they fished or they farmed or

they were involved in forest products work, construction, or whatever, had no

opportunity to gather any more than, in most occasions, weeks that were

certainly less than fifty-two, less than twenty-six, less than thirteen.

We all know, every member in this House knows, especially the

members in rural Newfoundland, how difficult and how hard it was for people in

rural communities to go from place to place trying to find employment. I say to

you, Mr. Speaker, in your district, where the fishery was historic, that there

were people in your district who left the fishing boats, went to the woods

operations, worked with the Fudges in the Fudge camps and so forth and so on,

continually trying to get as much employment as they possibly could. Even some

of them - from my hon. colleague here - walked from Fogo to pick up the train to

get to St. John's to get a berth to go the seal fishery. Those are the kinds of

historical things that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been involved in.

Now, for somebody in Ottawa to classify Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who had nothing at their disposal only the seasonal work they were

able to garner up as a second class type of person and two-tier them into a

system they were forced into through no fault of their own.

MR. TOBIN: What about your silence?

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the hon. member that I have not

been silent, but the one thing I have learned, I say to the hon. member, it is

better to try to negotiate on behalf of the people of this Province with some

degree of responsibility and sincerity. I have been to Ottawa five times to see

Minister Axworthy, and I do not know how many pieces of correspondence and

telephone conversations, to highlight -

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them.

MR. MURPHY: I would like to table you, I say to the hon.

member, or some such other thing. Let me be sincere with the member. He knows,

as I know, that you cannot negotiate through media or in this House, or anywhere

in a public sense, and represent the people of this Province, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, in the best possible way. You have to sit, and you

have to negotiate, and highlight, and make sure that a minister who was born and

bred in Winnipeg knows and understands everything he needs to know and

understand about Newfoundlanders, the workforce history of Newfoundland, and

make sure you drive that home, and I can assure the hon. member that is what has

taken place.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that seasonal

employment needs to be covered by UI. The Member for Eagle River talked about

the contributions of UI coming from the employers of the Province and the

employees of the Province. The problem is that if we have the type of recession

we had in 1982 when Mr. Peckford was over here, and it was a very short period

of recession, and Mr. Peckford got all beside himself, as he should have, on

behalf of the people of this Province.

Now, this government has been faced with 1990, up to now,

recession, the loss of the groundfish, and just for the information of the

Member for Burin - Placentia West when he talks about $680 million of UI last

year in comparison to over $1 billion in 1991 he should know and understand, and

set the record straight, that some $260 million, that he did not include in his

numbers, were paid out in TAGS which would have normally gone into the UI

structure if the groundfishery was still being executed. That figure is totally

misleading, I say to the member, and he should correct it when he gets a chance.

Let us take into account the profound effect of UI changes on

communities depending on seasonal employment. No matter where you go in the

870-plus communities of this Province there are very few towns, a few around the

Province who are very fortunate. The Member for Humber Valley knows how

important the forestry industry is to people in his district, whether it is the

sawmill operating or the cutting and harvesting of forest products for either

Kruger and/or Abitibi Price. It is not the fault of the people in the member's

district, or other rural districts, if we do not have snow and Abitibi Price - I

use this as an example and the member can speak to it, if they do not have snow

and they can harvest wood and need wood right up to January, there are always

enough people in the member's district, and other districts in rural

Newfoundland, to go to work and take advantage of that employment opportunity,

but if the snow falls early and they cannot get in the woods, and they have

sixteen or seventeen weeks of UI, then that is the only bit of work they can

access. It is, as far as this government is concerned, it is unquestionable to

say that a transition from twelve weeks, twenty weeks entry, twelve weeks within

a given year, to change that in such a way that it makes it extremely hard for

Newfoundlanders, is totally unacceptable. We know that the people of this

Province, through no fault of their own, are dependent on UI.

If the federal government has a deficit problem then the

deficit problem is not in UI within itself. There is a small amount of deficit

there but, as I say, the other problem is - and this is what the federal

government brings back when you sit down with them, 1991, 1992, and 1993 were

years of deficit and the federal government had to support those years, but 1994

and 1995 we are looking at a significant amount of surplus in the UI fund. Now

you have to ask yourself, is it fair that somebody else in this great nation,

this great Canada, would unilaterally say: Look, what is good for the guy in

Hamilton or Toronto is good for the guy in Newfoundland. The same opportunity

for employment in Alberta or B.C. is not the same opportunity as employment for

people in rural Newfoundland, through no fault of their own, and historically

Newfoundlanders, because of their desire to work, have left the Province, and

this is not the last couple of years, or three or four years. Every hon. member

here knows that since the thirties - the Member for Placentia nods - since the

thirties Newfoundlanders have been going from the Boston States to Toronto, to

Fort McMurray, to whatever, and this has been historic. If all the

Newfoundlanders came home, I say to hon. members, maybe the rock would sink, I

do not know, but we are all over the place because of the work ethic of

Newfoundlanders.

Now the federal government knows from this provincial

government - knows and must understand - that if they are going to deal with UI

reform and talk to us about social safety nets related to UI reform, that the

transition, and they are talking all kinds of things - and to be quite candid

and to be quite honest with all hon. members, in all the meetings and all the

dealings with Minister Axworthy, I have gotten a lot of innuendo and a lot of

maybes, have gone from hours to weeks, and the point of entry, and thirty-six

hour weeks versus forty hour weeks, and twenty-two to get in, thirteen or

fourteen weeks to get in, seasonally and so forth and so on, shorter periods of

time accessing UI, and all of these scenarios have been thrown in front of me as

the minister responsible, and to try and unravel it is impossible because we

have not yet seen Mr. Axworthy stand on his feet in the House of Commons and

say: Here is the new UI program that will take effect July 1, 1996. I do not

have that information, as much as I would like to, because if I had the

information then again I could go back and make representation if I saw some

flaws in it, and say: Look, you cannot do this to us in our region; it just will

not work. It will drive our people into the lap of the Minister of Social

Services.

There is the reality of it, I say to hon. members. That is

the reality, and we are doing everything we possibly can to support the position

of the Member for Eagle River. If there is a transition period, if - and I say

`if' - UI continues to run in a deficit position, then obviously there has to be

adjustments because, as the Minister of Finance full and well knows, Mr. Martin

has told all the other ministers to decrease their budgets appropriately.

Subsequently what will happen is that we are going to pay a price through

transfers - we all know that - we are going to pay a price through other

programming, but UI, being so important, takes on a domino effect, I say to you,

Mr. Speaker. Once you start to realize that x amount of dollars are extracted

from the Province, then everybody suffers.

So, I think it is extremely important that we all recognize

that seasonal employment needs to be covered by UI, without question. Drastic

and dramatic changes are not acceptable to this government and will not be

acceptable before Mr. Axworthy stands to speak or after Mr. Axworthy stands to

speak. We have worked very hard to make sure that he and his colleagues know and

understand the position that this Province, both the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, are going to be impacted and affected with drastic changes. We have

all heard the expression, but to maintain and retain the social safety net we

have to cut and slash.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I said we have heard. Now, if the hon. member

all of a sudden shows up and hears something... He should be here in his seat,

listening attentively as I listened to him yesterday. What I am saying to the

hon. member is that Newfoundlanders are prepared to know and understand that

there are UI changes coming.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: By leave just to clue up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I gave you leave, I did so. Well I did.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, of all the things and all the resolutions

brought to the House of Assembly over the years and especially in this session,

well I know this is only the third week we have been open but this resolution is

a very important resolution. Now of all the things, all the polices and all the

changes that has been talked about and recommended by the federal government

today and there has been many, I would suspect that over the next six or seven

months we are going to see, in no uncertain terms, what it is going to mean for

the social programs and eventually to the people of this Province. It will be

devastating, Mr. Speaker, to say the least.

Now this resolution, like I said, is a good one but there is

nothing in it. It is an anorexic resolution. There is absolutely nothing on it.

It is time, as far as I am concerned, for members opposite and members on this

side of the House to put some meat on the bones of this resolution. It is too

transparent. You can see right through it. It is not going to do anything. Why

should we be standing here in the House today asking the House of Assembly to

endorse the government's position? Now there are fifty-two of us here, what good

is it for us to endorse the government's position? We would be endorsing

everybody's position in this Province. Everybody in this Province today have

concerns with cuts to UI, everybody. So you would not find a person in the

Province today, unless there are a few that got their pay cheque every Friday

evening, twelve months of the year, forever and a day. Sure they are going to

criticize.

The big so called entrepreneurs are going to criticize

because so and so is on social services or so and so is on UI. Granted we have

some abuse in everything we have, every kind of a system. In every kind of

program we have some abuse. We cannot help that, it is in income tax, it is

right with Revenue Canada; it is in everything we do and touch today in this

Province and in this country but do we have to throw out the baby with the bath

water? In this case, Mr. Speaker, someone has to speak up. We have to speak up.

The Premiers, especially Atlantic Canada.

Do you know one of the things that I see came out of the

referendum the other night in Quebec? Quebec is going to be hurt more than

anyone else in Canada except for other parts of Atlantic Canada by a decision to

cut UI, regardless if there is a qualifying period or the duration period in

which you draw. Quebec is going to be hurt. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, if

there was ever a time for us as members of this Chamber and other members in

Chambers around Atlantic Canada and more especially in Quebec, now is the time

to put the gun to the heads of the people who are making the decisions in

Ottawa.

I got to refer back to the general election, the Provincial

Election in 1989. There was a little rumour going around the Province at that

time that Crosbie and his cohorts in Ottawa were going to change the qualifying

period from ten weeks to possibly eleven, possibly twelve, depending on whether

the unemployment rate in the area, especially around the St. John's and Avalon

area, all out around the Conception Bay area would drop down to around 13 per

cent or go up to 13 per cent or 14 per cent. There might be a percentage point

here or there but I can recall those days when I was going door to door on the

West Coast of the Province and no matter where you went the federal politicians

and our Mr. Tobin now on the West Coast, Brian was upfront every day of the

week, he was in Ottawa asking all kinds of questions. The members opposite - I

know my colleague the Member for Strait of Belle Isle was kicking up all kinds

of fuss because they were talking about a small change. The Member for Port de

Grave too, in 1989. Now there isn't a word.

Last summer the federal government put it from ten to twelve

weeks. There wasn't a whimper. Not only did it do it, but it did it

retroactively. It cut the legs out from under a goodly number or percentage of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians retroactively. It brought in legislation July

3, 1994 and made it retroactive to April 3, 1994. Anybody who had ten weeks and

were laid off between those two dates had to go back and get two weeks in order

to qualify for UI.

Mr. Speaker, we have a case today in this country where not

only are the qualifying weeks going to be increased, or are talked about being

increased, but the duration period for drawing as well. We have a province in

which we have an unemployment rate officially of somewhere around 20 per cent to

23 per cent; unofficially up in the forties. We have a province in Atlantic

Canada, one of the only provinces in Canada with a TAGS program because of the

demise of the groundfishery. We have social programs being cut now by the feds,

in turn by the Province, and in turn by municipalities right on down to the

ordinary Joe. Those people are suffering enough. The unemployment rate is high

enough.

It is hard enough in this Province today to get a measly ten

weeks, let alone twelve. To ask people in this Province to try to get more, to

get fifteen or sixteen or twenty, is wrong. We have to stand up. It is about

time we do so before it is too late. They can't get it. The forestry workers,

the workers in the tourism industry. We have fisherpersons around this Province

affected. We have people in construction. You can go on, and there is no end to

it. Our industry, our climate almost dictates that it is seasonal work.

In some places in North America they do have year-round

tourism industries. Very few, but there are some. Our tourism industry, pretty

well in the summertime around this Province, that is pretty well it. We have

some like Marble Mountain hoping to capitalize on a four-season resort and so

on, and try to bring in more revenue, and keep people employed twelve months of

the year. The forestry industry is trying to spread it out a little more so that

workers work different times of the year so they always get fresh wood and they

won't have to be using wood that if it is cut - the forest industry in the

Province today doesn't want any wood that is cut over six weeks. Anything six

weeks old or more, they don't want to see it. They will take it, possibly at a

lesser price, but really they don't want to see it.

We have concerns from unions. When you see the unions in this

Province get together with a big paper company such as Abitibi-Price and Kruger

to try to do something with regards to the federal government's intentions of

changing these particular programs then you know there is reason for concern.

Every member in this Chamber knows full well, because of the phone calls they

receive on a daily basis as it pertains to problems in this Province with people

trying to get enough to qualify for UI, they know full well what the

circumstances are going to be, and what the repercussions are going to be if

anything in this particular program is changed.

We know full well there are going to be changes. No question.

Why should the federal government all of a sudden be interested in changing a

program and cutting a program to people who are at their mercy, to people who

the federal government has nothing to do with it. This is an employer-employee

program funded fully by the employers and the employees in this Province when

they are working, and that's the reason for the program, when a person was out

of work to try to give them something to live on and to sustain their families

and themselves until they went back to work, so why don't they concentrate on

something that they are collecting the taxpayers money for and try to do

something with? Some of the dollars that they have been putting into training

programs and so on through HRD, why don't they pay more attention to some of the

dollars that are going out in other areas of that particular department? So, Mr.

Speaker, I question the silence of federal members in this Province as it

pertains to this particular program, as it pertains to the possibility of cuts

to this particular program. Why is there so much silence from federal members in

this Province?

I can refer, as I said, back to 1989, when this Province was

in an uproar over a very small, very minuscule difference in the percentage

points with regards to UI and some of the changes that were possibly going to be

made, but in this case, Mr. Speaker, we know that they are going to be made, we

know what is coming down the tube, and as I said, the only thing that may stop

it for a while is the situation and the turmoil in the Province of Quebec as of

Monday night. So, Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite, that we have to try to

get something more on this particular resolution. This is nothing, this is

nothing. This is a motherhood resolution the way it stands today, it's a

motherhood resolution because there is nothing there; they are asking us to

endorse the government's position that seasonal workers not be treated any

differently from anybody else.

Who is going to disagree with that except, like I said

earlier, some of the people who get a pay cheque every Friday evening and not

worry where the next dollar is coming from. So, in order to do that, we propose,

on the last

BE IT RESOLVED: that the House of Assembly endorse the government's

position that seasonal workers not be treated any differently from others who

access the program, to amend that particular resolution and put in: BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the federal government to

ensure that there be no increase in the qualifying period or reduction in the

duration period for benefits. Those are the two crucial areas with regards to

unemployment insurance in the Province today.

People now, with the twelve weeks, they are being laid off

and when they are laid off, do not have enough weeks because of the duration

period you can draw, they can't draw UI long enough in order to bring them back

to the time they are called back to work. Say for instance, if a river warden or

someone in forestry is laid off in November month and they are supposed to go to

work in April, they may have to wait, and that is back on the provincial

government. That goes back on the provincial government because they have to go

on social services. The demands that will be put on the Department of Social

Services provincially, because of the changes, any changes to the UI in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, will be drastic, so I say to members opposite, especially

Cabinet ministers, they are going to have to make some crucial decisions over

the next little while with regards to the budgetary process in this Province

next spring, then they better take heed, they better take heed to some of the

things that are coming down the tube by the federal government, not only as it

pertains to UI, the education program, pertains to health care and everything

else so, Mr. Speaker, I present this amendment to members opposite and to the

House for your perusal and possibly your approval and hopefully, Mr. Speaker,

there is not a person in this House who would vote against such an amendment to

such an important resolution that would help each and every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian in this Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member,

the Chair will recess for a few moments to consider whether the resolution is in

order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I draw hon. member's attention to Beauchesne, Paragraph 567.

"The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as

to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition

as an alternative to the original question." It is the ruling of the Chair,

therefore, that the amendment is in order.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take away

from the time of other members because this is a very important topic and

members, like I said in my fifteen minute speech, pretty well every member in

this House has been approached at one time or another, especially over the last

little while concerning this particular problem. I would be only repetitious in

what I would be saying if I spoke for another fifteen minutes so I would like to

just say to hon. members that at the end of the day when they rise to get a

chance to vote on this particular amendment, I think it would be sending a real

message from the House, that was initiated by my colleague for Eagle River, on

this particular resolution and, like I say, put some meat on this particular

resolution, let us get it passed, and get it to Ottawa so they can see we mean

business down here. Coming from all members of the House of Assembly, Mr.

Speaker, would show that we mean business on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Island.

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

We have had an amendment put forward and that may attract

further speakers to want to participate in this this afternoon. I just want to

make a few points with respect to the whole concept of unemployment insurance,

and how we in Newfoundland have to begin to look at it in probably a different

way than we have in the past.

I think most Newfoundlanders would readily agree that they

are no longer satisfied with the concept of wanting to have a cheque come to

them ever other week in the mail for simply the sake of getting the cheque. I

think that concept of a cheque coming to us on a regular basis is based on the

fact that we have traditionally in this Province lived on seasonal employment.

Now, within seasonal employment, and I have said this before on a number of

occasions, there are problems even with seasonal employment in Newfoundland. You

have the contractor who hires carpenters and his labourers and those people make

a reasonable or decent wage over that fifteen weeks, eighteen weeks, twenty

weeks, or whatever it is that they may accumulate during the work period. They

themselves through no fault of their own, through lack of work, find themselves

on UI, and that is a concept that we have to maintain and something we have to

realize will be a part of this Province for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, we also have an inequity on the other side. We

also have people in this Province who, through the mere nature of the kind of

work that they do, are able to accumulate large amounts of income in short

periods of time. I suppose this past season the crab fishery might be a good

example of where crews did very well in a very short period of time.

Historically we've seen in the fishing industry there have been cases where

there have been people who have made, over a twelve- to thirteen-week period, or

a fifteen-week period, $70,000, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 a year in income, and

then have the privilege of being able to access additional income for the

remaining forty weeks, or thirty-odd weeks, whatever it would be, in UI.

I think what we have to do, if we are going to try to find a

way to stabilize unemployment insurance, not only in Canada but in our Province,

I think we have to find a new way of looking at how unemployment insurance is

paid. I don't believe the committee that was set up by Minister Axworthy that

toured Atlantic Canada, and Newfoundland in particular, took enough time to

really analyze what new approaches could be taken in a province like ours with

respect to UI. I took the time to write Minister Axworthy last year this time to

explain to him that I felt that if they were to spend more time in rural

Newfoundland they might have a better idea of the concept of what UI means to

those who live in rural Newfoundland, and how much it is a part of the

maintenance and survival of their very communities.

One of the things that I've been expounding or professing is

the fact that, one, we have to look at the idea and concept of those who are in

need, by all means they have to receive. Those who are out of work through no

fault of their own, be it factories closing, or businesses closing. That is

there as an insurance policy for them. Seasonal workers are an area that we are

going to have to look at in the future in a different light. I think what we

have to do is to look at a process whereby there is a minimum and maximum.

If a person's income were to reach X number of dollars during

a period of time then maybe they are welcome to and should receive maximum

benefits. Should a person in a short period of time have the advantage of

earning $40,000, or let's take a magic number of $50,000 - for discussion

purposes and no more - that those people, or those in that category, should

probably be entitled to a very small percentage of what would be normal UI, or

indeed none at all. What it comes down to is that they themselves know that they

are going to have an opportunity to make large amounts of money in a short

period of time. With that in mind they then have to realize that they too have

to balance or spread their income out over a period of time, or over a given

year.

Those are the kinds of abuses I think that Newfoundlanders

have had to carry in terms of making their own arguments for UI, not only within

the Province but indeed across Canada. Those are some of the, I guess, pitfalls

that the federal government finds itself having to look upon.

If we don't set parameters by which there are minimums and

maximums in terms of what can be claimed against the incomes that are made in

short periods of time, I think all of us will agree that the UI fund as we know

it can't survive and it won't go on much longer. I think we are in a fortunate

position in Canada right now that the amount of money in the program is in

excess of what is being paid out annually, and I suppose that in itself is a

minor miracle. But also the fact that there has been a significant amount of

money in that fund that is now being used to retrain or to allow people with

minimum training standards to upgrade their standards, and hopefully be able to

find employment that will carry them over a substantial part of the year rather

than just in short periods.

In making changes to UI, one of the things we always have to

be afraid of is that somewhere in Ottawa someone sits in a high-rise tower with

a pen and paper, willing to make changes upon people or regions of Canada that

they have never seen. They do not understand that if you are living on the

Northern Peninsula or the Labrador Coast, that by this time of year there will

be no more nets go in the water and there is very little else to do because the

ice moves in and the season has ended.

In a lot of cases we have a short construction season when it

comes to the housing industry or the home-building trades which would normally

start, probably, in Ontario, moving into its peak around Easter time, barely

gets started here in June, so we have very short construction seasons, which is

again a little different than in other provinces.

So we have to ourselves be very cautious and careful of what

the mandarins in Ottawa may send down to impose upon us. In a lot of cases

programs are being recommended that, at the end of the day, will see, or

potentially see, a greater out-migration from our Province, but more than that a

greater degree of people leaving the smaller communities for the larger centres

where at the end of the day they will probably do nothing more than eke out a

meagre existence and in many cases find themselves having to rely upon social

services at the end of the day in order to make ends meet.

I think what we have to also be careful of is that when we

are looking at making changes, and although because of the degree and the need

in our Province it is easy for us to want to scratch and claw for the maximum

amounts that we can get, and I think we ourselves in this House, and indeed the

people who have an opportunity to make influence upon the federal government,

those of us across the Province who have an opportunity to influence those who

will make the decisions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: I have not decided yet. I have not seen it,

actually; I have only heard it being read in reference to whether or not I

support the amendment. I would appreciate seeing a copy of the amendment which I

have not seen as of yet.

What we have to do, we ourselves have to be cautious in that

we have to be reasonable in what it is that we are looking to do, and I think by

setting parameters in terms of minimums and maximums, by deciding what the high

end of an individual's income will be beyond which they cannot collect UI, I

think those are the kinds of things that we have to look at, and they themselves

may be somewhat revolutionary or confrontational, but again I believe that we

have to once and for all say that we cannot continue a practice that allows

anyone to earn $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 or, as I said earlier, pick a

number of $50,000 a year plus and still be entitled to receiving UI for the

remaining twenty weeks or thirty weeks of the year. Those are the kinds of

things, I think, that will bankrupt the system that currently exists, and at the

end of the day UI premiums may not be something that is there that will be

available to those who really need it.

There is no doubt that changes are coming. There is no doubt

about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not necessary.

MR. WALSH: They are coming, and I think what you will

find is that when a fund that you are asking a business community to support to

a maximum degree, when you are expecting the same from the employees themselves,

we will face a point in time where what is coming out is going to be far greater

than what is going in, and at that point in time we will cross over the magic

threshold and it will go bankrupt.

So when we look at the changes that are coming, I think we

have to be reasonable in our approach, and I think the reasonable approach to

take is to set parameters. There are people throughout Canada, and there are

people in this Province, by the mere nature of the employment that they have on

a seasonal basis, who will always be in need. There will always be those who

will not fall and make enough income or not find a job that will carry them

through a full year in order to support themselves, their families or their

dependents but at the same time, there are people who work for very short

periods of time and have the opportunity of maximizing their income and at the

end of a short period of time working, make in excess of $40,000 - $50,000 a

year. Those are the people that we are going to have to set the minimum draw on

so that those who need it most will receive the most.

Mr. Speaker, I have not received a copy of the amendment so

it is difficult for me to comment one way or another. I will have to leave that

to the speakers who will follow me, in terms of what their feelings are towards

the amendment that was put forward. I have heard the words but I have not

retained exactly what was said so I think it would be unfair for me to comment.

Mr. Speaker, I will say to you though that I support the

proposal put forward by the Member for Eagle River and feel comfortable and

confident in the remarks that he made. I am sure that before the afternoon ends

we will have an opportunity to hear from some others. With that in mind, Mr.

Speaker, I am going to give some other individuals an opportunity to speak on

the issue. Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correct, from what I have heard

from the comments that were made by the Member for Humber Valley and again, I

have not seen a copy of the amendment but from what I heard the hon. member say

and from what my memory tells me, I believe that I personally could be

comfortable with the amendment that was put forward and that I would have no

trouble at all in supporting the amendment if it is as I have heard. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased today

to have the opportunity to stand and say a few words on the Private Members'

Resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Eagle River. As the member touched

on in his opening remarks, he comes from a district that depends very much on

seasonal employment which is similar to many districts in our Province and

definitely similar to the District of St. Mary's - The Capes, Mr. Speaker. That

is why I am pleased today to stand and say a few words on this very important

resolution put forward by the Member for Eagle River.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a tradition in the Newfoundland and

Labrador society for the past number of years to be dealing in what we call a

seasonal employment nature. Mr. Speaker, we have a fishing industry here that is

now undergoing some major problems that has been, most of the time, of a

seasonal nature. Our forestry industry, Mr. Speaker, here in the Province has

been mostly on a seasonal nature. Our construction industry, Mr. Speaker, we

look around in many places here where you are dealing with Concrete Products or

you are dealing with any other part of construction you have to wait sometimes

well up into mid-June. The construction season is also very short and seasonal

in nature. When you talk about construction, our roads and our highway

construction, Mr. Speaker, basically any type of construction here in the

Province is mostly done on a seasonal nature, especially, when it is in the

outdoors.

Most important of all, Mr. Speaker, over the past number of

years we have seen a major rise in the tourism industry in this Province. The

fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are now pouring into our Province, Mr.

Speaker, new dollars coming from outside in a lot of cases - outside the

Province and indeed outside the country - that these new dollars in our tourism

industry that are coming into our Province, once again, we are faced with the

problem, in most cases, of dealing with them on a seasonal nature.

Mr. Speaker, our winter tourism product is starting to come

around which will give the opportunity for some parts of our Province to partake

in a year round tourism operation such as the Corner Brook area with Marble

Mountain and the White Hills and some other - up on the Labrador. There are

several parts of our Province which will have the opportunity to partake in the

year round tourism operation but most of the Province will be dealing with a

short-term, possibly three, four, or five month maximum tourism operation, from

maybe the 24th of May weekend up until the Thanksgiving weekend, or whatever the

case may be. Therefore the fact that the Member for Eagle River brings forward a

resolution that has to deal with seasonal workers in this Province, I believe,

is very important and indeed a resolution that we should all, at least, have the

opportunity to stand up and say a few words on.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to agree with the Member for Humber

Valley who put forward the resolution that would see that there be no increase

in the number of insurable weeks that a person would need to quality for UI

insurance, and also to see that there be no decrease in the time that a person

could draw benefits. That is certainly a concern that I have in my district.

Even this past year or so I have been dealing with some river guardians in my

district who were laid off shortly after Labour Day 1994. Their UI benefits had

completely run out by the time May came around and they were not rehired until

the latter part of June. This caused some major problems for these people

because there was almost two months really on both ends of the stick where they

ended up with no income due to the nature of the UI system.

Mr. Speaker, the concern that the Member for Humber Valley

brings out when he puts forward his amendment that has to deal with the decrease

in the amount of time somebody can draw benefits is certainly of a concern to

the people in my district, so I believe I can support the Member for Eagle

River's resolution, along with the amendment put forward by the Member for

Humber Valley. I believe that anybody who deals with a district here in rural

Newfoundland can understand definitely where the amendment came from and where

the resolution came from.

I do not think there should be any problem here in the House

in supporting both pieces and forwarding the concerns to the people in Ottawa

who will be making the decisions based on the UI changes that are forthcoming,

bringing forward the concerns of the people of the Province, and to make sure

that the changes do not adversely affect rural Newfoundland and definitely the

people who have decided to live there.

Along with that, Mr. Speaker, we have several concerns and

one has to do, I believe, with the surplus that is now in the UI fund. I have

been told over the last couple of days that there is over a $2 billion surplus

in the UI fund for the last fiscal year, at the same time that government is

planning on making some major changes that will effect the seasonal workers in

general, and indeed all workers who depend upon, at some time, the UI system.

The fact that we have over a $2 billion surplus and the fact that over the next

two years it is being said that there could be as much as a $5 billion surplus

in the UI fund, then I think that government should start looking at some ways

of creating some incentives to employers and employees, and to put some dollars

back into the pockets of the employers by reducing some of