November

8, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 52

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Before we begin the routine proceedings for today I would

like to welcome to the galleries eleven students from Central Newfoundland

Regional College, along with their instructor Arnot Coish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: A multiplicity of benefits.

Mr. Speaker, on July 2, 1991, a Piper Cherokee Cruiser from

the Aviation Career Academy crashed in a wooded area near Terra Nova in this

Province. The pilot, Craig David Adey, and his three passengers, Carl Robert

Allwood, Kelly Ann Cleary and Mary Jean Lewis, all died in the air crash.

The hon. William Baker, a Judge of the Provincial Court, was

appointed to carry out an inquiry under the provisions of the

Summary

Proceedings Act. Judge Baker heard evidence over a four week period in August

and November of 1993, and submitted his report to me recently. I now table the

report.

Judge Baker made the following findings which are set out in

his report. These include:

There is no evidence that David Craig Adey was an incompetent

pilot... based on the evidence Judge Baker concluded, and this is a quotation,

Sir, "I would classify him as a novice pilot at the time of the accident."

Secondly, given the weather information available to the

pilot at the time of departure from Gander, the flight was permissible under the

Aviation Regulations covering visual flight rules.

Next, the aircraft was in good mechanical condition. Due to

the marginal visibility to ground references the pilot was relying primarily, if

not entirely, on radio navigation (VOR) for directions during the flight.

Next, the pilot encountered severe storm conditions with

electrical activity, high winds and zero ceiling shortly after take off. These

conditions were present at the crash location.

Finally, Judge Baker concluded that: and these are

quotations, sir, "(

i) pilot actions associated with this flight and, (ii) severe

weather conditions, combined with the inexperience of the pilot were probably

the immediate causes of this crash."

Judge Baker made no recommendations in the report which might

prevent similar deaths. He did, however, accept the opinion of Dr. Charles

Hutton, at that time the provinces Chief Forensic Pathologist. One or more of

the rear seat passengers might have survived had the aircraft been fitted with,

and the passengers wearing, properly attached shoulder harnesses and lap belts.

Recommendations on the use of such shoulder harnesses and belts have been made

following the investigation of many similar air crashes. Such recommendations

have been made to the aircraft industry and to the Canadian authorities

responsible for aviation safety.

As members know, Mr. Speaker, authority for regulations of

aviation rests with the Federal Government. I have written my colleague, the

Minister of Transport in Ottawa, to ask him to consider these recommendations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as is our practice, a copy of this

support was provided several days ago to the parties of the enquiry so that they

can deal with it in advance of it being made public, as I now do so, Sir.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

copy of the statement previous to coming in the House. One of the glaring

conclusions, the second one, was that severe weather conditions combined with

the inexperience of the pilot were probably the immediate cause of this crash.

The minister also said that he has brought these concerns about the shoulder

harnesses and the lap belts to the federal minister; I think it is Mr. Young.

One of the things that is happening, and the minister should

be aware of, and if he is not then the Minister of Transportation should

certainly be aware of what is happening with the privatization of airports in

Canada today and the recommendation from the federal government that there be

one airport. St. John's airport would be the only so-called weather station for

aircraft in this Province. This is a prime example when you have a small

aircraft leaving Gander, just a few miles out in Terra Nova, based on visual.

That is all he was going on really, and what can happen. We can have four

seasons in three or four hours in this Province and the federal government

should not be allowed to implement such a program in this Province.

I ask the ministers and members opposite to make that

recommendation to Ottawa, along with the recommendation that the minister has in

his statement. It is very, very, important and this is evident of what can

happen.

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you for

recognizing me.

I hereby table the financial statistical report for the

Division of Income and Support of the Department of Social Services for the

fiscal year 1994-95, and as well I also table the annual report 1994-95 for the

Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to

update members on the Status of the Edge Program, and more specifically I would

like to table the list of companies who have entered into contracts with the

government pursuant to

Section 7 (4) of the Economic Diversification Growth

Enterprises Act.

Under the Act, the company that receives EDGE designation

must enter into a contract after approval is given by Cabinet, and the contract

binds the EDGE Corporation to implementation of its EDGE business plan in return

for the benefits provided under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have a total of

fourteen contracts that I would like to table today, they are listed in the

Statement.

In addition to the fourteen companies, there are ten other

companies that have received EDGE designation by Cabinet and work is progressing

on finalizing the contractual agreements with each of them. While I have

announced these ten designations in the public domain, I am providing the House

today with a full listing of the document, what each company is and what they

propose to do.

This bring it to a total of twenty-four, the number of

companies that have received EDGE designation to date, Mr. Speaker, and their

business plans call for new capital investment in the Province in excess of $100

million, and 600 direct, new, permanent jobs. Government continues to receive

substantive EDGE inquiries on a weekly basis and further designations are

expected to be announced shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the

contribution of municipalities with respect to the EDGE Program. To date, there

are thirty-one municipalities that have formally indicated their willingness to

participate in this program by offering municipal property and/or business tax

benefits to EDGE firms. Numerous other municipalities have indicated their

intent to do the same in the near future. Their participation has strengthened

considerably the EDGE program as a business investment tool and I would

encourage, as with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, other

municipalities who have not yet decided to participate, to give favourable

consideration to doing so at the earliest opportunity.

I also wish to inform the House that the Province, through

the Premier, has asked the federal government to mirror the EDGE program as it

relates to federal corporate income tax. With active federal participation,

similar to what has been achieved in respect of municipal participation; the

EDGE program has the potential to serve as an even greater economic stimulus

than it is serving at present. Federal action along these lines would be

appropriate and justified given the significant dislocation caused to the

economy, people and communities of this Province by the federal government's

decision to close the groundfish fishery.

It can also be implemented without significant budgetary

impact at the federal level, given the fact that it is tax-based and would be

triggered only in circumstances where new business activity actually occurs.

It is important to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that the

Province's proposal to the federal government in not open-ended. It is view that

federal mirroring should continue only until the full-time equivalent jobs that

were lost due to the federal closure of the fishery have been recouped. We are

also sensitive to the possible unfair competitive advantage that such federal

tax holidays could provide Newfoundland firms over companies elsewhere in Canada

who are in a directly competitive business and marketplace.

It would not be reasonable for us to insist that federal

corporate income tax incentives be granted in such circumstance, nor would it be

reasonable for us to insist that such incentives be granted in circumstances

where they cause a firm elsewhere in Canada to relocate existing employment or

business activity to Newfoundland. Government is prepared to accept such

limitations on a federally mirrored EDGE program without hesitation.

I would ask hon. members of the House to support our efforts,

and all members to promote the EDGE program at every opportunity. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased, as the critic for Industry, Trade and

Technology on behalf of my party, to stand and support the EDGE legislation as

we did when it was introduced in this House. Also I would point out that it was

this party that put forward recommendations and suggested changes to the EDGE

legislation which this government accepted, which made the EDGE legislation more

attractive.

While it is more than acceptable to see creation of new jobs

and new investment in this Province - as the minister has indicated, some 600

jobs - the onus is on me to point out today that 600 jobs are clearly not

enough. The only initiative that has been forthcoming from this government has

been the EDGE legislation.

With respect to the minister's statement with regard to the

proposal made to the Federal Government about, let's say, a `double-EDGE,' if

you would wish to call it that, he indicates that a proposal has been made to

the Federal Government. I ask the minister: Would he table that proposal that

was made to the Federal Government, in light of, as he puts it here, "the

significant dislocation caused to the economy"? Mr. Speaker, what we are really

talking about here is significant resettlement that will be caused as a result

of this.

Will he also, while tabling that proposal, indicate to the

people of this Province what the Federal Government's response has been to date

to that proposal, if they are willing to accept it, and what time frames are

they looking at? Thank you very much.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 9, 1993, Leette Renee Moores died on an operating

table during gall bladder surgery at the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital

in St. John's, Newfoundland. Ms Moores was twenty years old and apparently in

excellent health.

The Hon. John Rorke, a judge of the Provincial Court, was

appointed to carry out an inquiry under the provisions of the

Summary

Proceedings Act. Judge Rorke held hearings commencing in December of 1994 and,

following several adjournments, these hearings were concluded in June of 1995. A

report was recently submitted, which I now table.

Judge Rorke made several findings which are set out in the

report. These include:

The cause of death was determined as "Blood loss due to a

perforated right common iliac as a consequence of a therapeutic misadventure."

Secondly: The surgery was performed by means of a

laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This involves the introduction of a needle into

the abdomen and the patient's belly distended with a gas to expand the work

space. The surgeon then pushes a cutting instrument called a trocar through the

abdominal wall. A tiny television camera is then introduced into the belly

cavity. Three other tiny incisions are made and the whole operation is performed

indirectly from outside the body via television.

Thirdly: The inquiry judge concluded that the introduction of

the cutting instrument - that is a trocar - into the abdomen of Ms Moores by the

attending surgeon perforated the artery, producing internal bleeding. Despite

observing some pooling of blood the surgeon was unable to observe any source of

such bleeding. As a result, the possibility of haemorrhage was discounted by the

surgeon when the patient became distressed. Had he not discounted such cause,

the surgical team could have quickly opened the abdomen, which would have

exposed the puncture of the artery. The inquiry judge concluded at page 24:

"Observation of the interior under direct vision would have

exposed the puncture and immediate intervention might have saved Ms Moores'

life. Failure to fully investigate the possibility of haemorrhage appears to be

error."

Judge Rorke made no recommendations in the inquiry report as,

in his view, such general recommendations could not forestall errors, as no

fault could be found with the norm. Judge Rorke noted that counsel for the

parties at the inquiry did make several recommendations to the inquiry in their

written submissions, and commended appropriate bodies to wisely consider the

advice contained in those recommendations.

The full report was provided to all interested parties

several days ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister once again

for providing the report to me before coming into the House, and also for the

minister having the insight and the foresight to provide copies to the families.

As far as I am concerned, that was very important, especially as it relates to

both those incidents.

One of the things that - I didn't have a chance to go through

the report, just to read the Ministerial Statement, but I glanced at a couple of

the comments made in the report, especially with regard to the cause of death.

It is very sad when we look at a report such as this and read papers, and look

at newscasts pertaining to such a tragedy in this Province with the health care

system. Part of the report by the pathologist, Dr. Avis, said he testified that

after the blood flow began there was a period of approximately six to ten

minutes during which there was a chance of saving the patient.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the state that the health care

system is in in this Province today will not lead to further tragedy. The stress

and strain that are on the medical profession today in the Province - nurses,

doctors, nursing assistants, whoever is involved in health care in the Province

- are under a lot of stress.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: I would say to members opposite to make

sure that some of the recommendations that are contained in this report be

implemented immediately, especially as it pertains to this particular operation.

I won't go on. I haven't the time to go on. The minister knows full well what is

in the report and the recommendations that were made.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Premier. The Chrtien government is about to proceed with major changes to

unemployment insurance, a program which is extremely important to Newfoundland

and Labrador. Will the Premier confirm that the federal government has briefed

the provincial government about the looming changes, and will the Premier tell

the House of Assembly and the people of this Province now what the changes will

mean to Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can't confirm everything the Leader of

the Opposition has just said. I can confirm that my colleague the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations has had a number of discussions with Mr.

Axworthy. In particular, the chairman of the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet,

the Minister of Education and Training, has had numerous discussions as well.

I have had correspondence with the Prime Minister, I've met

with the Prime Minister about it. I've had discussions with the other Atlantic

premiers about it. We have asked the Prime Minister of Canada to meet

specifically with the four Atlantic premiers. A meeting was tentatively

scheduled for, I believe, November 2, if I recall correctly, in Toronto.

Unfortunately the Prime Minister had to call the meeting off. It has not as yet

been rescheduled. I am waiting to hear, and I guess I will probably enquire of

the Prime Minister's office when that is going to be scheduled to discuss just

that matter.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not acceptable

for the Premier of this Province to take a detached, academic approach to

looming cuts to unemployment insurance that are going to devastate this

Province. Will the Premier answer a straightforward question: What are those

changes going to mean to Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

can make those outlandish claims if she wishes. "A detached, academic approach."

I never heard of anything so ludicrous. I've been involved extensively over the

last number of months in discussions with Mr. Tobin, Mr. Axworthy and the Prime

Minister and the other three Atlantic Premiers on this issue and for that

matter, all of the Premiers of Canada have discussed the issue as well. That is

hardly "a detached, academic approach." A great deal of effort has been put in

it and as of this moment I do not know the precise details of what the federal

government is proposing. I don't have the details. The two ministers, to whom I

have spoken, have had more detailed discussions than I have on the issue and

both ministers can speak more clearly to the detail than I can. I don't, and so

far as I know, they don't know precisely what is going to be proposed by the

federal government.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is shocking. Will the Premier tell us

approximately, generally, how much money will be taken out of the Newfoundland

and Labrador economy as a result of the proposed cuts in unemployment insurance

and approximately how many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be put on the

social assistance rolls as a result of the cuts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I could say 5 million, I could say 500

million, I could say 150 million, I could say 350 million. None of it would have

any basis in fact because the detail of what is proposed is not yet known. Now

maybe the Leader of the Opposition does not accept that or she does not

appreciate the words, I don't know. I have heard the comments of the member of

parliament to whom she referred, Mr. Baker, I have heard him make statements. He

is at the centre of things in Ottawa. Maybe he has some more detail then I do

and maybe he has a greater basis for expressing those concerns. I have expressed

those same concerns to the Prime Minister and told him what the impact would be

on this Province. I have expressed them to the Minister of Finance and to Mr.

Tobin. I have discussed them in detail with Mr. Tobin over the last several

months. I know the other two ministers have had extensive discussions as well.

What I cannot tell the House at the moment is what the minister will propose if,

as, and when he puts the proposal forward because to the best of my knowledge it

is not, at this moment, determined.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier of this Province has not said a peep publicly to

oppose the threatened cuts. Now political leaders elsewhere -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: Leaders in other provinces, such as Premier

McKenna in New Brunswick, have loudly and vigorously opposed the proposed cuts

in UI entitlement on the part of seasonal workers. Considering the very high

percentage of the Newfoundland and Labrador workforce that is employed

seasonally, why has this Premier been so silent? Is it not because he is

agreeing with Brian Tobin and Jean Chrtien because once again he is aiding and

abetting the Federal Liberal Government in imposing cuts on Newfoundland and

Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I know that following the tradition of the

former Premier ranting and raving was an approach. It is not the approach that I

follow. Now either it is wrong or it is right but I don't follow that approach.

I deal with matters intelligently and make the case publicly. I have done so

publicly on numerous occasions, dealt with the issue publicly and I intend to

continue to do so. Now I know former Premier Peckford used to rant and rave and

that was an approach that he took. I don't particularly agree with that

approach. I think there is a much more sensible way to deal with all of the

issues confronting us.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday the Minister of Finance tabled a brief statement

dealing with Holiday Inns sale or Hotel Buildings Limited sale of properties.

Mr. Speaker, a very brief statement indeed in view of the complexity and the

importance of the proposal. Can the minister give us more details? Will he agree

to table the details of all of the bids? He refers to the tender bids in his

statement, was this indeed a tender process in the normal concept of the word?

Were tenders submitted in sealed envelops, opened in public all at one time and

if so, who was present? Did the bids go to the lowest bidder or the preferred

bidder? What analysis was done to determine the cost benefit ratio to the

Province of one bid versus the other and was local preference applied? Would he

give us some information in that regard?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the hon. member asked three questions. The first

was: Will I give full information? If the hon. member gives me a little time I

will file it this afternoon in Answers to Questions for which Notice has been

Given. My recollection is that there were ten bids which I mentioned earlier in

the House in response to his question. I will give all the details. Secondly,

the bids were opened, I believe it was on a Friday in mid October, October 19th

or 20th, somewhere in that vicinity. All the bids were opened, I think, in the

presence of whoever chose to attend. Thirdly, his question was whether or not

any provincial preference was applied? The answer is, no, it was sold to the

highest combination and that was between Fortis and Mr. Chaulk for Port aux

Basques, I believe it was.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the proposed sale price is well

below the book value, which the minister indicated last week was $29.9 million,

I believe, and the replacement value is probably five times that or more,

certainly for those buildings. Did the minister undertake any cost benefit

analysis of selling these properties now versus retaining the properties and

leasing them to the highest bidder for operation and management of the

facilities? What return would there have been there on a long-term basis, versus

there any commitment here for future investment in those properties, any

expansion plans of the Fortis Corporation, for example, versus some of the other

bids that might have been put in? Would he also tell us if these remain to be

Holiday Inns or will they take on another name? Will we lose the benefit of

being part of that international chain?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, this time I believe the hon.

member asked five questions.

MR. WINDSOR: Six the next time.

MR. DICKS: First, as to the book value. Holiday Inns were

not carried at any book value. As I mentioned in response to your earlier

questions the calculation of the amount paid to build them back in the 1960s,

plus accumulated interest was in the vicinity of $29 million, but that does not

take into account the depreciation of those assets over the corresponding period

of time, so it does not represent book value, but represents a calculation of

monies in that fashion.

Secondly, he said something to the effect that it would cost

more to replace them, and that is indeed true. If we were to rebuild these

hotels it would be substantially more than they were sold for, however that

again does not take into account depreciation and more importantly market value

which reflects economic circumstances. As far as the cost benefits analysis,

what we looked at in terms of selling them was what the highest price we could

realize for those hotels would be. That was, I think, achieved through the

tender process. In terms of cost benefits to the Province I tabled some figures

about a week or so ago and my recollection is that last year we earned about

$90-odd thousand from it, the year before about $121,000, and two years prior to

that were loss situations, so I would say the benefit by selling them at this

figure of approximately what was in fact $6,485,000 far exceeds the return of

approximately $100,000 we have been realizing in the past two years.

Thirdly, were there any terms or (inaudible) for any economic

expansion. No, Mr. Speaker, rather than get into a process of negotiating we

wanted a clean tender process where we advertised these for sale, saw what bids

were there and took the highest. As to whether or not the successful bidders

will apply the Holiday Inn franchise is entirely a matter for their negotiations

with Holiday Inns.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am trying to determine in my own mind why the minister is

in such a hurry here. He obviously has not done any analysis, or asked for any

quotations, on what revenues might be derived from retaining these properties

signed in the early 1960s with Atlafic Corporation and carried through to 1993

which was the end of that term, and has been carried through from year to year

since then, obviously, government did not get a good rate of return. Atlafic

made tremendous amounts of money over that term of the contract and perhaps

government could realize a good share of that if they had investigated.

Why is the minister in such a hurry to sell Holiday Inns? Is

this part of his $60 million deficit proposal? Is this how he is proposing to

deal with that? Is this one of his quick fixes to short-term gain? What next is

going to be on the auction block of government? When is Confederation Building

going to be sold, Mr. Speaker? Let me ask this question, as has been asked of

me, is this perhaps a way of compensating Fortis for the failure of their

trumped up hydro deal?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: In the answer to the last question, of course

not, Mr. Speaker. Fortis was the highest bidder for four of them in terms of

what they offered to the Province in its immediate value. The second thing, no,

this is not a way of dealing with the $60 million deficit problem. As I

indicated earlier there was a figure of $10 million, I think, budgeted in our

Budget this spring that we had intended or hoped to receive from the sale; that

was not realized. We were deficient in that proposal.

Thirdly, as regards to an analysis of leasing I think it is

pretty clear from the experience we have had that continuing to lease them and

having someone else manage them really does not yield any benefit to the

Province. The hotel industry has not been in very good shape. Occupancy rates

are down and, in fact, were we to continue leasing them would result in probably

greater expenditures in terms of capital improvements to retain the Holiday Inn

franchises, and frankly I think the government would be in the prospect of

losing money in the next few years as opposed to gaining any more money.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

In July of 1994 the National Airports Policy was announced by

the Minister of Transport. It deals with airport commercialization. The only

form of commercialization permitted is the establishment of a local airport

authority. Does the minister and this government support this approach to

privatization or downloading of airports?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not support the

proposed transfer of airports to the Province or to organizations in the

Province as put forth by Transport Canada.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

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

The minister is aware that in February of 1995 a regional

planning group was formed representing various groups, interest groups on the

Northeast Avalon, to explore commercialization of the St. John's Airport. This

group is meeting, or has met, and made presentations to the City of St. John's,

the City of Mount Pearl, and the Town of Conception Bay South seeking support in

formation of an airport authority. Has this group met with the minister, and if

so does the minister support this group and the privatization of the St. John's

Airport?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, if we do

not support the proposed transferring of airports to local airport authorities

or community organizations then we would not be able to support the question the

hon. member is asking.

The position of the Province is very clear. We are saying, as

a Province, that the responsibility of the transportation at the airports is a

federal responsibility, that if we assume and support what the federal minister

is trying to do, at the end of the day when an airport becomes in financial

trouble it would then come back on the taxpayers of this Province. We, as a

Province, certainly cannot afford that; nor should we take that responsibility.

We are saying to the federal minister, to the federal government: This is your

responsibility and we are not going to be in the position of offloading on the

provincial taxpayers the responsibility of running airports.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In August of this year the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor

received $5.5 million under the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Agreement for

the implementation of a sewage treatment system. The town has already invested

$3 million in phase one of the project, so my question is: Since one-third of

the funding for this project comes from the provincial government, I would like

to ask the minister if he can give me a report on the status of this project.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, when the tenders were called and

ultimately opened, the project was short some $830,000 - the lowest tender. I

have to be quite honest and frank with the Member for Grand Falls and say to him

that I do not know where to find $850,000 today.

There is also another slight problem with the tendering

process. The lowest tender has not been accepted yet because there were some

problems with the actual bidding, and the bidding process. I have asked my

friend, the Minister of Justice, and his people, to advise my department on how

they feel about the actual infraction, and I am waiting for that report to come

back from Justice. At that particular point in time, I guess, I will have to

address the question of what we are going to do with that particular contract

this year, but I must stress to this House that last spring when we announced

$25 million worth of infrastructure money, I told the House at the time, if you

can remember, that we were stretching that right to the nth degree, right to the

limit, and today I can honestly say I would not know where to go to find - in

infrastructure or in capital works - the $800,000 less the one-third that the

town has offered to pay; I would not know where to find it. I don't know if that

job is going to be any easier tomorrow or the next day when I have to deal with

the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls on a

supplementary.

MR. MACKEY: So it appears, Mr. Speaker, that the Province

seems to be able to come up with funding for renovations and so on, Philip Place

and so on,

whereas the mayor of the town has said that the town is prepared to

make one-third of its commitment, so I just wonder if the minister could advise

if there are other alternatives and what are they?

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

Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, they talk of golf courses in the

Province and I am led to believe that we just helped to fund the one on the

Burin Peninsula of which the hon. member is a part of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I am sure the hon. Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation would love to hear that.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat to the House what I said. I am not

in any position today to say whether or not that money is available. I don't

know where to find it today; I can only say to the hon. member, give me a chance

to go through the system of getting advice with regards to the tendering package

and at the end of the day, we will have an answer for him. I don't know to be

quite honest about it, where I will find the money today. I will say this to you

in all sincerity because you are a new member in the House.

Last year, when we decided to do that massive job which is

going to cost some $12 million at the end of the day, it was to clean up the

Exploits River. This government's policy with regards to the environment and

cleaning up a number of our salmon rivers, has always been a priority as far as

I know, since 1989. I can't see for one minute why it wouldn't continue to be a

priority with this government.

Now what I am saying to you, at the end of the day is, if we

can find the money to assist the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, to complete this

project, Mr. Speaker, we will find it, but you have to remember, that today, I

am not in a position and we are dealing on a day-to-day basis, with a shortfall

in funding in this Province right now in a number of areas, and with all of that

taken into consideration, I will let the hon. member know as soon as I possibly

can, what the decision of this government is as it relates to his request.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Will the minister confirm that there are approximately 100

medically discharged patients occupying acute care beds in hospitals in this

city at a cost in the range of $300 to $500 a day?

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

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

I can't confirm the exact number. I can tell the hon. member,

as he knows, that on any given day there are always a number of medically

discharged patients at pretty well all of our acute care or tertiary care

hospitals in the Province, and the number of 100 may or may not be accurate. I

will attempt to get a specific number for him and report that number for his

benefit and information to the House tomorrow.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These people who are discharged are candidates for nursing

homes and they require Level II and Level III care. Now, since there are waiting

lists and very lengthy ones for admission to nursing homes, it is more likely

that many of these people will have to stay in hospital for months; in some

cases over a year before they can get admitted to a nursing home; there is only

a turnover of thirty-five people per month I understand. I heard the minister

state that on radio last month.

Now, it costs $150,000 a year to keep a person in an acute

care bed and 100 people approximately - if that figure is accurate, the minister

can confirm that - that is $15 million a year. These people can be kept in a

nursing home for $5 million a year. What does the minister plan to do to address

the tying up of expensive acute care beds with medically discharged patients,

who only require one-third of that cost?

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

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

The proposition that the hon. member puts forward is not

entirely correct. The numbers may be somewhat correct. The perception that there

are long waiting lists for long-term care is not entirely correct; the fact that

there may be 100 people in medically discharged beds at the moment does not

indicate that they are all trying to get into institutions in the St. John's

area, as he would have us believe.

There are not, in fact, long waiting lists in long-term care

facilities around the Province. We have put in place in excess of 2,900

long-term care beds in the Province. That is 200 more than the Orsborn Royal

Commission recommended by 1995 when they did their report on institutional

long-term care facilities back in 1984, 1985, 1986. They recommended that we go

from 2,200 to 2,700. We have gone to 2,900-plus. So we have made ample provision

on a provincial basis, and while there may be some temporary lineups in certain

areas, it is not, in fact, a really serious situation throughout the total

system.

As to his asking what we are doing, I can tell him one of the

things we are doing. We have recently commissioned through the Health Research

Centre at Memorial University a complete study of a continuum of the need in

terms of continuum of care from enriched needs, personal care homes and

long-term care homes in the Province. Once we have the information presented to

us from that continuum of care study, which I anticipate will be within the next

four months, we will be in a better position to know exactly what our needs are

in all of those areas for the immediate future.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem with nursing home beds is studied to death. The

minister has a study, the Agnew Peckham study, that identifies it here in the

St. John's region. He knows well the need for future beds.

I have spoken with many people who are in the same situation

I referred to. In fact, the minister announced they cannot go back into the

community because of a cap of only about eight hours per day. They need several

hours a day, almost twenty-four hours care per day on level II and level III

people. The minister has them in a situation where they can't go back into the

community because of a cap and they can't get into nursing homes because of a

lengthy waiting list.

The demand for nursing home beds is far in excess of the

supply that is there today, and the minister knows fully well. We can't keep

these people in expensive hospital beds, and with an aging population this is

going to get worse. I ask the minister: What plan does he have to address this

problem not only in the short term but in the long term?

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

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

I attempted to answer that question a minute ago and with the

bantering back and forth he may have missed the answer.

I have indicated to the House and the hon. member that we are

in the process, as we speak, of having a full continuum of care analysis done by

the health research unit at Memorial University to indicate to us what it is

exactly we need at the moment and for the foreseeable future in terms of

facilities to handle people who have long-term care needs, in terms of analyzing

what we have with respect to personal care homes in the Province, and also in

terms of telling us really what the need is and what we should be trying to

address in terms of need in the community-based services.

That continuum of care review is in process as we speak. Once

we get that, within the next three or four months, we will have a more

definitive idea as to what we should be planning for over the next five to ten

years.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In

the most recent edition of The Voisey's Bay News , Mr. Carson of Diamond

Fields indicates that it is their intention to put a nickel smelter in this

Province. `That is our intention,' Mr. Carson said, and I quote. He also goes on

to say that there are good smelters throughout the world only operating at 50

per cent capacity, et cetera. So there are obviously international pressures

against putting a smelter in this Province. If we assume that there is a

sufficient ore reserve to warrant a smelter, to make a smelter economically

viable, will this government not issue a licence unless there is a smelter,

under those circumstances?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have said it loud and clear

many times what the circumstances are relative to Voisey's Bay, and there will

be a smelter in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the minister won't give a yes or no answer. All he is

stating are government's intentions, and intentions are all we are getting from

the mining companies.

Another matter with regard to this project. When that mineral

discovery was first found, this House was in the process of amending downwards

the mineral tax regulations. The Premier, in the last session of the House,

indicated the tax rules were going to be changed because they were overgenerous

for a Voisey's Bay-type find. The mining community is out there saying you don't

change the rules in the middle of the game. The government has itself in a bit

of a fix. Can the minister indicate when and how they are going to get

themselves out of that fix?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a fix to be in!

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, it's a great fix to be in. It's the

best mineral discovery we have had in this Province in the 498 years since John

Cabot discovered the rock, and I am looking forward to the fix.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the fix, if, indeed, we do get decent or

generous royalties from the Voisey's Bay operation, has this government

approached the Federal Government on this and other like projects with regard to

an agreement as we have with Hibernia so that we don't lose dollar for dollar on

equalization?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, any royalties or taxes that we

collect on the mineral industry will be treated as other taxes and royalties

that we get on the mineral industry for taxes onshore, and there is no question

about it; we do not have to enter any special agreements with Ottawa. This is

routine and natural.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The provincial budget documents show a total allocation under

the MOGs of $41.8 million, and the budget also shows an expected revenue of $1.8

million. What are the sources of this particular revenue, I ask the minister,

and what proportion of that revenue has been achieved to date? In other words,

is this part of the budget proceeding as the minister had anticipated when the

budget was passed some months ago?

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for a quick answer from the

hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it will be a quick answer, too. I

will just give you one example of revenue under the industrial water supply

system. The hon. member should be aware of Marystown, for example. The towns pay

the department for using their water supply system. I don't know exactly how

much that amounts to - it is a good question. I will provide the information to

the hon. member tomorrow in the House. Give me a chance to go over and I will

get the exact details, and I will be able to give him the exact answer to his

question tomorrow.

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

Petitions

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents

of my district, Baie Verte - White Bay district. I will read the prayer of the

petition;

We the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula are very

concerned with the recent cutbacks of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. We believe that these cutbacks will seriously affect the safety

as well as the overall quality of transportation on the Baie Verte Peninsula.

We ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

reconsider these reductions in order to ensure that the safety and quality of

road transportation is retained at an acceptable safety level, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of several petitions I have

presented on behalf of my constituents over the last few weeks and there are

more going to be coming in over the next few weeks. Mr. Speaker, I don't think

my district is any different from a lot of the other rural Newfoundland areas

who are very concerned as they start to see the season commence where the snow

begins. I guess, in a sort of way the panic button is starting to be pushed

because they have very grave concerns of the overall safety on our highways that

is going to come this winter.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, we heard report after report of

situations

whereas we could not respond efficiently to what was happening on our

highways in regards to the weather, Mr. Speaker, especially with rural

Newfoundland, in my district, for example, with twenty-one communities, sixteen

trunk roads off the two main roads. That is what we have in my district. I am

sure that compares to many other rural Newfoundland districts who have the very

serious concerns that we speak about here today and that is, Mr. Speaker, first

and foremost the safety of the people who use those roads. For example, if they

go down to the main road on the Baie Verte Highway, we have another sixteen

branching off that and then also the other main road which goes down to La Scie,

another eleven communities that branches off that, Mr. Speaker.

These people who live in the smaller communities are very

concerned, Mr. Speaker, not just for the general things they do in the run of a

day when they see a snowstorm developing but also, Mr. Speaker, two other things

especially now, is the health care. For example, they would have to not just go

to the Baie Verte clinic now but to a two or three hour drive to get to either

Corner Brook Hospital or Grand Falls Hospital. So these people that are in the

far reaching communities have even more concerns.

Second of all, Mr. Speaker, is the children who drive on

school buses from these small communities. Now their parents have to see that

when they go on these buses that the roads are safe for them. So, Mr. Speaker,

when we start to talk about the cutbacks, I wonder how thoroughly the minister

really thought about the rural Newfoundland communities. I mean the real rural

Newfoundland communities, the ones that are far reaching out there, that are the

last to be serviced when the snowstorm hits. If those people have to get to a

hospital quickly, what happens, Mr. Speaker? In a community like Purbeck's Cove

or down in Wild Cove we have to come up high grades of hill, where last year it

was bad enough, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister really have anybody believe that with these

further reductions - who are the ones who are affected most, Mr. Speaker? It is

the people in the further out rural parts of this Province - that set of people

- and the minister makes jokes about it and that is what is a real problem. I

would like for the people of the different communities to sit here and watch the

minister on how he reacts to these cuts, Mr. Speaker. It is a big joke to him

because there is no problem for St. John's, Corner Brook and Grand Falls but

there is a problem for people who still live in those communities.

Now this Province might have an agenda to resettle this

Province in some way but these people still live in these communities today,

they are still going to live in those communities next week and they are still

going to live there next year and these are the people that are most affected by

the cutbacks of this government, especially as it relates to transportation.

They are the people that are most concerned because they are the ones that are

most affected. That is the problem we have here, Mr. Speaker. People down in

Wild Cove, it was bad enough last year with the reductions in transportation,

they waited so long for the roads to be cleared, they are going to have to wait

longer this year. If there is an emergency in the morning so that a person has

to go to the hospital -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) no reductions.

MR. SHELLEY: No reductions, he says. Now all of a sudden

we find out that the Baie Verte depot, for example, has only half the number of

mechanics that used to be there. Now there are hearing rumours that they are

going to have to put equipment on flatbeds, send it to Grand Falls, have it

fixed, sent back to Baie Verte and then plough the roads. Now, Mr. Speaker, how

can the minister sit there and have somebody think that they are going to

believe that? We have a dozer, a flyer or whatever that breaks down, we have two

mechanics there, they cannot do them all. They have to be sent, put on a flat

bed and sent to Grand Falls for a mechanic to do it in Grand Falls and then sent

back down to Baie Verte Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, it is totally ridiculous and this minister - it

is obvious, Mr. Speaker, when he did start to consider this there was no

consideration given to the real rural parts of Newfoundland. Those are the

people who are weakest and those are the people who are most affected by cuts

like this, that this minister has done through callousness, with no thought

given to these people of the situation that arises with school busing and also

the medical care of these people, Mr. Speaker.

It comes right back down to safety. I will continue to

present these petitions. Because these people I'm sure, mark my words here today

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - that before this winter is out this

minister will have a lot to answer to, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

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

the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. When it comes

to cutbacks in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation we've seen

many cutbacks over the past number of years. This year we've seen as many as 200

people being laid off from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

One group of people that is being hit very hard is the

mechanics within the department itself and at the various depots. Now we have a

situation where if you have a piece of equipment that is broken down on the

highway we have to ask the question: How long before that piece of equipment

will be repaired? Can you imagine out in the middle of a snowstorm or somewhere

and we have a piece of equipment broken down? We have to get people to get out

to that piece of equipment and try and get it repaired. We may have to call

people back from home, type of thing, because we don't have enough staff. What

does that do with respect to the safety of the travelling public?

With respect to the cutbacks themselves, as I was saying we

have hundreds of people being laid off within the department, and not only in

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, but the government in

general. That has to have a great impact on the morale of the people working in

the various government departments. That in effect will affect the economy of

the Province.

I will give you an example. I know of an individual who

retired this year, and her husband was working, and she had planned to buy a

vehicle for her husband. Because of the doubt with respect to the person's job

or how secure that person's job is who is working with the government, she

decided not to spend her severance pay and to purchase that vehicle. How many

times is that happening throughout the public service within this Province?

This government has to look at restoring the public

confidence. We have to start restoring the confidence of the employees of this

government. One way of doing that, and I have to say, and I've said it in the

past and I will say it again, the Premier of this Province I believe is probably

the most negative person in the Province when it comes to the people of the

Province. I've yet to see this Premier stand and say something positive about

the people of the Province, about the economy of the Province. It is always doom

and gloom. We have to get away from that.

I believe the government has gone too far with respect to

public safety and putting the public safety at risk on the highways. I brought

this up before. There are other people who have brought it up before. The

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation always sloughs it off, makes a

joke, ridicules it. I hope that these actions and the words of the minister will

not come back to haunt the minister this year or the following year or whatever.

I don't say the minister will be there that much longer anyway so I probably

won't have to worry about next winter. This winter is our concern, the most

immediate time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time's up!

MR. J. BYRNE: It can't be up yet, Mr. Speaker. Just a few

words on the resettlement. I believe the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay

brought it up. This government since it got elected in 1989 has a number of

policies in place directly related to resettlement, resettlement on a large

scale in this Province and outside the Province.

First of all, we saw the amalgamation issue arise forcing

small towns into larger communities. Then we saw the municipal operating grants

being cut, restructured, again cutting money to the municipalities. Then we saw

cuts to the road component, cut from $2,200 per kilometre per year down to I

think it was $65 per kilometre last year. Again, forcing small towns and people

out of small towns because the towns cannot provide the services any more with

this government on their backs and the down loading all the time.

Then of course we saw health care cuts. What is happening in

the Province now, Mr. Speaker? Health care cuts -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

I just remind the hon. member that he is speaking to the

petition. He should restrict his remarks to the material allegations of the

petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the

petition was referring to cuts with respect to the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation. I believe there is relevance here. Because I am basically

associating the cuts with the government and the health care cuts - there are

cuts in every department within this Province, Mr. Speaker, and if you talk

about health care we do have a situation where the cuts themselves, with respect

to Works, Services and Transportation, if we have a snow storm and the roads are

not being ploughed or cleared properly, and we have someone who is sick and we

have to have an ambulance go to that person's house, then we have a situation

where the cuts in health care, the cuts in all government departments, are

affecting the supply of services in the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is Private Members' Day, and it is the day that... if

the Brazil nut, or whatever he is, sitting in the Opposition Leader's seat would

be quiet we will try to get on with this.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't hear you.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the hon. gentleman, even when he does

hear does not understand. I can answer for the first but not the second, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is the day when the

Opposition get to choose the topic of debate, and I understand they wish to

debate the notice that stands in the name of my friend from Burin - Placentia

West. With that, if Your Honour would call it, we will sit back and listen with

interest to what he says. He and I will both be learning it at the same time.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they are something like the

minister; they are (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, this resolution that I introduce today, I am

sure my colleague, the Minister of Education and Training, will debate the

issue.

The resolution is, and I will read it for the record:

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have failed to

qualify for unemployment insurance benefits; and

WHEREAS federal and provincial government cutbacks have been

a contributing factor to this economic situation;

THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED this House call upon government to

implement an emergency employment program to help alleviate the economic

hardship facing many families in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I brought forth that resolution in the House to

be debated today because I am concerned about what this government is not doing

to protect the unemployed people in this Province. Day in and day out, for the

past number of weeks our office has been abuzz with telephone calls from people

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, people who have worked and dedicated their

lives to hard work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, they are calling because there are no

construction jobs, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

They are calling because this minister has sat idly by and not provided one cent

of the capital funding from the Province - we are talking about for road work in

this Province. If it wasn't for the Roads for Rails deal that the Member for

Port de Grave adamantly opposed, there would be no construction work in this

Province and we would not be receiving the calls from construction workers that

we are receiving today who do not qualify for unemployment insurance, because

there would be none of them who would have any insurable weeks of earnings.

This government knows that this Province and this country is

on the verge of making a major announcement that affects the unemployment

insurance in this Province, and the Premier was asked questions in this House

today about what is going to happen, and he washed his hands clear of it. The

Premier knows full well what is about to happen in this House, and I would

suspect he has his agent over there now meeting with the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations to discuss what is taking place in terms of this

resolution, to see if they can amend it, to see if they can throw up static, to

see if they can build a concrete wall to protect their friends in Ottawa, Mr.

Speaker, who were on the threshold of scuttling the seasonal employees of this

Province.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, I honestly don't know how people

who represent seasonally employed workers, can stand idly by and know what is

coming down the tube next week. Today, I heard George Baker on the radio.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Nobody is standing by, and we had a

Private Members resolution there a couple days (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Your Private Members resolution never once

referred to the Federal Government - not one reference, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to restrain themselves and to refrain from

interjecting.

The Chair has recognized the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Eagle

River, your resolution was a sham. Your resolution never once made reference to

the Federal Government and their proposed cutbacks, never once, Mr. Speaker, was

a reference made to the Federal Government. It was a sham, put up to throw up

static, so that when it comes down next week and they announce that the guts

have been cut out of the UI program for the people of this Province, you will be

able to say: We did something. You did absolutely nothing - I think the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology wants to say something.

Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one reference to the Federal

Government by the Member for Eagle River, who represents seasonal employees in

this Province. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, nobody should betray their constituents for

the protection of a clique in Ottawa that is about to sell out the rights, the

birthright of Newfoundlanders - nobody, and particularly the Member for Eagle

River. And that's what is happening, that's what is taking place in this

Province, according to what I am hearing.

I heard George Baker on the radio this morning, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That's right, a good man.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a good man - I wish you had the courage,

one-tenth of the courage that George Baker has, one-tenth of the courage. We

didn't hear you on saying what George Baker is saying; we didn't hear the

Premier on saying what George Baker is saying; we didn't hear the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations on, indeed we didn't. Why, I wonder?

MR. DUMARESQUE: You wouldn't know the difference.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I do know the difference. I would suspect

the difference is that George Baker is not looking for an appointment to the

Supreme Court - that's the difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or to Cabinet.

MR. TOBIN: Or to Cabinet, I say to the Member for Eagle

River.

What is going to happen in this Province when people's UI is

cut? What is going to happen to seasonal, unemployed people in this Province

whose unemployment is going to be cut by 1 per cent each year? What is going to

happen, Mr. Speaker, when the majority of people in this Province, I would

suggest, are going to have their UI cut to the extent that they will qualify for

a supplement from social assistance?

MR. DUMARESQUE: It's not going to happen.

MR. TOBIN: Not going to happen? Now, the Member for Eagle

River just made a statement, Mr. Speaker, that nobody, this is coming from the

Premier's Office - he is his Parliamentary Assistant.

MR. SULLIVAN: Say it again, we missed it.

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Eagle River states it is not

going to happen, that people will have to have their UI subsidized by social

assistance.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They will be defeated at the (inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Who will?

MR. DUMARESQUE: - and I will lead the charge.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You mark it down.

MR. TOBIN: You won't lead any charge, because if you were

about to lead a charge, you would not be selling out your constituents right now

trying to get into Cabinet, I say to the Member for Eagle River. If you want to

lead a charge, lead it now, challenge your Premier, challenge him, take him on.

Challenge the Premier for not saying anything, challenge the minister for not

saying anything, that's what you have to do. Challenge the Premier, Mr. Speaker,

instead of cuddling up to the Premier. Challenge him for not going out and

fighting for Newfoundlanders, defending their rights to draw unemployment

insurance, if they have the courage of their convictions and that member were

not about to sell his soul for a Cabinet post - and I don't think he will ever

get one, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: You are a sham. It is a sham you are trying to

perpetrate. That's what is going on. You are coming in here, bravo, hero,

challenge the Premier for not defending the rights of Newfoundlanders to be

entitled to UI the same as they have been since Confederation. Challenge the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for not saying one word. That's what

you do. Challenge your minister for not saying one word and not standing up for

the rights of the people on UI.

MR. EFFORD: Like you challenged Peckford to get a few

cigars.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there was one opportunity for me

to disagree with the Premier of this Province and I disagreed with him publicly.

I refused to sit at a table with the Premier of this Province one time. My

colleague, the Member for Grand Bank knows all about it and so does everyone

else. When the time came, my constituents came above everybody else - that's

what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't, it had something

to do with the fisheries, when the fish plants were closing down in this

Province. And Burin was going to close, but I stood up for Burin and fought for

Burin. I can tell the minister something right now, there would have never been

a secondary processing operation in Burin if it had not been for the Burin

committee headed by Lou Bailey at the time and Brian Peckford. There would have

never been secondary processing in Burin.

MR. SMITH: And what do you think you did?

MR. TOBIN: I had all to do with it, Mr. Speaker, because

at the time, when De Ban, Simmons, and the crowd came down there were signing a

deal that was going to close Burin forever - that's what they were doing. But I

stood up for Burin and refused to have my signature attached as a witness, I say

to the Member for Port au Port.

I will never, never, betray the people of Burin - Placentia

West as long as I am here, and if that means standing up and defending their

rights to continue to draw UI without the slashing that is about to take place,

without the attachment of a 1 per cent reduction a year because they are

seasonal employees. What do I say to the fishermen in Red Harbour who have

hauled their guts out as inshore fishermen all their lives, from May until

October or November? What do I say to them?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Sure, we agree (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You don't agree - you're doing nothing.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Go tell your (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I told him before and I'll tell him

again.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, is he recognized?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he's hardly recognizable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is unparliamentary for members to make comments from their

seat, or anybody else's seat unless they are recognized by the Chair. I ask

members to restrain themselves, and if not I will stand and interrupt debate

until there is silence in the House.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

That goes for both sides.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the people of Red Harbour, Baine Harbour, and every

other place in my district where there are seasonal employees, fishermen or

whatever they are, to the woodworkers throughout this Province, and to all

seasonal employees, I will never put the stripe of my political party in Ottawa

ahead of the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; whether that be

the people from Burin - Placentia West, from Eagle River, from Carbonear, from

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, from Fortune - Hermitage, from Humber Valley, from Grand

Bank, from St. Mary's - the Capes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Green Bay, and the hon. the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I just made a ruling and I will

stick to that ruling. The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West continues

debate, but I will halt debate until it stops.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say that with what sincerity I can muster.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations that I made a ruling.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling. What is

happening here today is there is a guilt complex setting in. There is a

conscious clicking. They are people aware that the boom is about to fall and

they have not stood up. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has not

said a word about what is going to come down the tube. The Member for Eagle

River has not said a word about what is going to come down the tube. And this

Premier has failed us miserably on this issue, on what is going to happen.

There are people calling our offices, and if they are calling

our offices, they are calling your offices as well, asking, begging, to see if

government can come up with some sort of an emergency employment program. I'm

sure the Member for Carbonear is getting calls asking if government is going to

come up with a program.

We talk about problems that are happening here. The other day

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TOBIN: The other day, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board got up in this House and talked about the amount of

money he is going to lose on transfer payments this year - I think he said

$5,000 or $6,000 per person - because of out-migration. The other night we saw a

program that showed, so far this year, 8,500 people leaving our Province.

What are you going to do with that? Where are they going?

B.C., Nova Scotia, number two? What does Nova Scotia have to offer to attract

people? Why do they have employment opportunities in Atlantic Canada that are

slipping away from us in Newfoundland? Why are people moving to New Brunswick in

Atlantic Canada because there are opportunities that we don't have here in

Newfoundland? Those are the questions we have to ask, and it is time that

someone gave answers.

When I saw that program the other night of that family

packing their clothes on the back of a truck and heading away, if there was

anyone in this Province who witnessed that and was not emotionally affected by

what took place, they have a turnip for a heart.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will be back in a little while.

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

Labour Relations.

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

It gives me some pleasure to rise today to speak to the

resolution put forward by the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

First of all, let me, if I might, just go back over the

situation associated with emergency response programming and how it came into

place and why it came into place. I think we realized at that time, and I think

an awful lot of us will agree, that most things were tied into what a lot of

people felt was a short-term recession, a recession that would last, at max, two

years. We also knew that the TAGS program and NCARP at that time, I might add,

were pouring into the Province, and people who really had no entitlement to

NCARP were receiving it. Subsequently, the Federal Government resolved that

program.

Our employment emergency program, I think the first year, was

somewhere in the vicinity of $12 million. It was used and there was a tremendous

amount of negative outpouring from not only the Federal Government of the day -

and it wasn't the present Federal Government, I might add - that the

Newfoundland Government was involved in not creating long-term meaningful,

skill-training type of employment for the people of the Province so that they

could access either full-time programming, or at least be involved in meaningful

work that would get them at least twenty-five or thirty weeks of work. Most of

this work was associated, as we know, with the dependency that this Province has

had too long - we all know that - and that was our fishery, our groundfish, our

forest products and our mining.

By comparison today, if Kruger lost its wood source tomorrow

then what would happen is that -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Kilbride that there will be an

opportunity for him to participate in the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

What would happen is that the Town of Corner Brook would

really be in trouble. We all realize that there are spin-off industries - the

same thing would happen in Grand Falls - but when the groundfish went, it didn't

impact upon a city or a town, it impacted upon the whole Island. It showed the

tremendous dependency that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had on the

groundfish.

Now, we came forward with a program. Again, we took the

scourge of the then Tory government of the day for doing so. They called us

everything but doing the thing right. How dare we put in place... The Mulroney

Administration said: How dare the Government of Newfoundland put in place an

emergency response program to bring people up to a level - just the mere,

meagre, peak level - of qualifying for UI? that was not what UI was intended

for. And they rammed that down this government's throat, and told us time and

time again. The next year, the government had changed, but the psychology hadn't

changed. The Federal Government still told this government, with a $10 million

program, was doing wrong. It wasn't the way to do it. You cannot qualify people

to access UI. It is improper; it is not right. And they used all the right

reasons; they felt, at that time.

Last year, I want to remind hon. members, after a long debate

with the Federal Government, and discussion with our colleagues here, we found

$5 million to apply to emergency response funding to create employment. The

difference was, we added to that program a five point criteria. And all hon.

members remember, it was very difficult for people to access the emergency

response program.

I told this House last January, as I tell this House today -

I told all the members and I told the people of the Province, that it was not

advisable to look forward to seeing a similar type program at this time of the

year or ever again.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we deal with this now because it has,

I suppose, a political platform. It has a political platform for everybody to

get up and thump their chest and make a noise, and kick up a racket, and say

`nobody cares', and so forth and so on. Let me say that the program design was

not consistent, of course, with other provincial employment programs and with

wage subsidy policies put forward by HRDC. It was not consistent, and it does

nothing for us as we sit at the table with the minister responsible for UI,

where we have a tremendous dependency, I say to hon. members opposite, for our

workforce, our seasonal workforce that has historically been able to access UI,

fellows and women who have got as high as thirty-five weeks in the forest

industry, as I say, and the construction industry and so forth and so on. Now,

all of a sudden, we find the technology in our forest operation is reducing

those weeks, and we are trying to negotiate with the Federal Government and say

to them: It is extremely important that you do little or no tampering with

unemployment insurance because of the horrendous impact that it will have on the

people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, believe me when I say to you that we told Mr.

Axworthy, with figures to substantiate, on every category from young people just

graduating from school, we took all the numbers associated with different

industries, we went and had meetings, we burned the midnight oil, I say, Mr.

Speaker, trying to put together the numbers that would make Newfoundland's case,

a case prima. We told Mr. Axworthy, `Listen, for heaven's sake, don't compare

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with BC, with Alberta, with

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec - the province, of

course, with real financial problems, as we know today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Axworthy, I say to the hon. member. We

told him -when I say, we; the minister, myself, officials from my department and

his department and on some occasions even the Minister of Social Services at the

meeting. So we identified to Minister Axworthy, the minister responsible, that

it was extremely important that he know and understand what kind of a disaster,

if there were a dramatic change in the unemployment insurance system, what an

impact and what an effect it would have on the people of this Province.

Now, we have heard a fair amount of rhetoric. The possibility

is it may be factual but I have great respect for my colleague in Ottawa, Mr.

Baker, who made some statements this morning. As the Premier said today in

Question Period, Mr. Baker may be dead on. I sense he might be close eight years

from now but it is very, very difficult for anybody on this side - and I say

this in all honesty; you cannot stand in this House or anywhere else, as an

official of government and/or even representing your constituents, and talk

innuendo and `maybe'. That isn't the way to do it. You can't have a reliable

resource or source and tell the world you have this great source, and then at

the end of the day you are entirely wrong...you are entirely wrong - I say that

to my friend, the Member for Kilbride, who had last year this tremendous source

that the Dockyard was going to shut down lock, stock and barrel at the end of

June.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he wrong?

MR. MURPHY: No, it didn't happen. I say to the member, he

was dead wrong. There are four ships on the synchrolift right now, there is one

on dry dock right now and there are two being worked on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is alright. Well, then, that doesn't

tell me that the Dockyard is closed, I say to the member.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether Mr. Baker is saying it

because he does have some source of information. What I will say is this, that

we did not in our meetings, negotiations, whatever you want to call them with

Mr. Axworthy, we didn't do it in the media, we didn't bawl out `sold the shop'

or get on. We sat down and brought the logic of the problem to the minister. We

brought the logic of the problem to the minister. We have also dealt with

Newfoundland's minister, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tobin. We dealt

sincerely.

Now, whether or not we made an impact on the circumstances

related to the people in this Province and the people who are seasonally

employed with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the people who

are seasonally employed with the Minister of Environment, the people who are

seasonally employed in construction - have their time reduced - the people who

are involved in farming, a much more active endeavour going on in the Province

of late. All of these people have to be protected because through no fault of

their own, Mr. Speaker, they can only attain so much work, and we don't make the

rules.

Some of the rules will change. I don't think that Mr.

Axworthy and it is just - again I say, I don't know for sure, it is hearsay, it

is like pulling teeth trying to get information out of the bureaucrats in Ottawa

and I've talked to them, god knows how many times. You feel so frustrated trying

to get information that you can count on, however, that's the way it is. I sense

- and I say this and am totally prepared to withdraw it if and when the time

comes - I sense that July 1, will be the kick-in period for the new UI program.

MR. EFFORD: This year?

MR. MURPHY: No, next year, `John', it can't be this year

- July 1 of 1996.

MR. EFFORD: That's what I mean - 1996.

MR. MURPHY: I sense - and I say to the minister, `I

sense' -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. MURPHY: That July 1, whatever Mr. Axworthy says will

be the start time of the new UI program.

MR. MANNING: Do you know anything about it?

MR. MURPHY: I said, `I sense'. The Member for St. Mary's

- The Capes, Mr. Speaker, engaged in dialogue when the Member for Burin -

Placentia West was on his feet. Now, would you ask him, please, Mr. Speaker, if

he would be kind enough - if he is going to listen, let him listen. If he is not

going to listen, tell him to keep his yap shut.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Tell him to keep his yap shut.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: He soon won't have a seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is unparliamentary to make comments from your own seat,

and I guess, in terms of Parliamentary law and rules, it is doubly

unparliamentary if you are in somebody else's seat, to make a comment. I ask the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes to restrain himself.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes -

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank you for your

protection.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say again to the hon. member, that

it is only hearsay - I said that to the member but he didn't hear because he

wasn't listening. It is hearsay that it may probably start July, next year. What

will be the impact? Will it be hours or will it be weeks? I am hearing it will

be hours. The hours will work out on a thirty-six hour week. Let's say, a first

time entry is now twenty weeks, as we know it.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I think it boils down - I say to the logical

Member for Ferryland, who always seems to ask and get involved in dialogue in

debate - and I don't mind responding to his questions because he does it in such

a gentlemanly fashion.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes. I say to the member, I think if we look

at it, from what I am hearing it comes out somewhere in the vicinity of

twenty-two-and-a-touch weeks. Now, there is an advantage to that, because if we

measure it in hours, and how often have we heard, a lot of us, that somebody who

is fortunate enough to acquire twenty weeks, and somebody offers him three days

work, two days work and say: `Now, boy, don't fool up me stamps because I got

good, high stamps,' well, the new program may very well say that you take those

three days and that will add distance and dollars to your UI down the road.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about (inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I say to the member, that's my

understanding. Now, I don't know, we are going to have to wait. I understand

that next Thursday, Mr. Axworthy will stand in his place in Ottawa and deliver

the new UI program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: Just to clue up.

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

MR. MURPHY: - and I say to the member, I look forward to

Mr. Axworthy standing in his place and giving us what we hope, all of us should

hope, is a program not so negative that it really destroys our Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who are out there, sincerely trying to find employment at a

very difficult time to attain that employment. So I look forward to dialogue and

debate with the Member for Ferryland -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) question?

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about somebody who works like a

half-week -

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

question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just wondering, somebody who is on part-time, such as,

let's say a nurse who works two shifts a week forever, will that person ever be

able to qualify for UI if he doesn't get those weeks over twenty or thirty - if

they just fall short but are on maybe for months and months, is there an avenue

open for somebody like that, or any seasonal or part-time worker?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me, by example, say to the hon. member - now, I don't

want someone to say I said this and hold me to it because it is hearsay, okay?

What I am saying to the member is, by example, if somebody

was a nurse and worked two and a half days a week, in fifty-two weeks that

individual would accumulate in hours, she would not have the weeks, but she

would accumulate in hours the equivalent of twenty-four or twenty-five weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Exactly, I say to the member, so in that

there may be some longer hours in initial entry, and the same thing would apply

for yearly entry, where we have twelve weeks now. It depends on the employment

circumstances. In St. John's sometimes it is ten weeks or twelve weeks, and

sometimes it is thirteen weeks because the scale goes up and down. I say that I

cannot support the member's resolution because it deals with an ongoing problem

and it does nothing, it leaves no impression across this nation for us, it does

not help us negotiate with our federal colleagues, so I say to the member -

MR. J. BYRNE: Could you answer a question?

MR. MURPHY: I would be happy to answer a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern is asking a

question of the minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: You made a statement that you sense by July

1 next year, this may happen or that may happen. I wonder if you have an

apparition from Lloyd Axworthy?

MR. MURPHY: I can honestly say, as all hon. members know,

it is totally unacceptable for any of us to stand in this House and mislead,

tell lies, to deceive, or whatever. I say to the member, (1) no, I do not know

the exact date. I say to the Member for Ferryland, (2) no, I do not have a

package. What the Premier told all of us today is accurate, that we are trying

to do our very best to gather as much information, but we do not have direct

correspondence associated with the new program.

With those few words I thank my colleagues for the

opportunity and I look forward to discussing the issue with sensible people

opposite for another day.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: I am glad today to be able to stand here in

my place and support the Private Member's bill as put forth by my friend and

colleague from Burin - Placentia West, the idea to put pressure on the

government of our Province to implement an emergency employment program to help

alleviate the economic hardship facing many families in this Province. Well, I

can speak from knowledge of the people in the Placentia district because I know

them. I have heard stories from other districts and today I am pleased to be

able to support a resolution, a private member's bill. But to hear the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations giving us a little bit of information to show

why he is a minister, just enough, but then saying that the Premier knew, the

Premier told him this morning, which all accounts had been pointed at for six

years, is that there is only one minister in the provincial Liberal government

and that is the Premier. All the rest of them are getting paid ministerial

salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now that is not right.

MR. CAREEN: That is the truth. The truth might be hard to

take but the truth will set you free, so the good book says. Anyway, the people

in Placentia district, and Placentia itself, the town of Placentia, the new

amalgamated town and the areas close by, Fox Harbour, Ship Harbour and Point

Verde, unemployment runs around 73 per cent and that includes TAGS, people who

once contributed very greatly to the coffers of this Province have in the last

few years encountered many difficulties. Then you have places like Long Harbour

and Mount Arlington Heights who contributed and are now on the rack.

Fishing communities such as Fair Haven and Little Harbour.

Southern Harbour, another place that felt resettlement. Resettlement of

twenty-odd years ago that while it was despised, Mr. Speaker, was more

forthright than the one we see today. We see a more subtle resettlement program.

We see a resettlement program where people are not even being paid to move.

Every day we hear about others moving.

I mentioned here the week before last that the Argentia ferry

this year took more one-way tickets out of Argentia than ever before in the

history of that service. These people are coming from Eastern Newfoundland. You

can get a return ticket through Argentia, or you can go out on the Argentia

ferry and get a return ticket through Port aux Basques, but these people were

buying one-way tickets out of Argentia. Out-migration. It is an echo through

this Province.

We all know, while we mightn't all repeat it here, that a

family reunion in this Province now is either a wake or a funeral. It is very

sad. Then we have the western influence in Ottawa, because it is certainly not

an eastern influence, that is poor bashing, really, and the talk about Atlantic

Canada in some cases and Quebec in another. Atlantic Canada gets the bad name

for drawing UI, and in particular Newfoundland does. It is worth noting however

that there are more UIC beneficiaries in the greater Montreal region than in all

Atlantic Canada. Isn't that something? But we, Newfoundlanders on the extreme

east, out in the North Atlantic, get the bad name while our fish - I don't care

what the administration was in Ottawa - was sold off for wheat out of

Saskatchewan and washing machines out of Ontario. We are still paying.

Newfoundland, we all know, you call Stats Canada and ask

about the unemployment figure. They give you rosy ones. Because it is only given

to people who visit manpower centres, not by the vast numbers of Newfoundlanders

who have given up on the whole system. Manpower out in Placentia is liable to

tell you it might be 21 per cent, 22 per cent unemployment home. Well, it is

closer to 73 per cent. It isn't much to brag about.

I said earlier about poor bashing. This unemployment

insurance is a right, it is a great benefit. The Axworthys of this world, I

don't know where they came from. He is supposed to be from Winnipeg, but it must

be Winnipeg in eastern Russia because it is not certainly Winnipeg in Canada.

Talking about a social conscience. How these UIC changes are going to hurt this

Province we can only imagine. Because every day - and I know, and I can guess -

every rural member in this House gets numerous calls from men and women, old and

young, looking for work and desperate. People in danger of losing their houses.

Still, poor bashing continues.

It hurts people in their daily lives. The adults and the

children are shunned, despised, pitied, patronized, humiliated, or ignored in

some cases. The individuals are blamed for being poor. The shifts are going from

the public's focus to individual poor people, and off on the governments and

corporations which are a much bigger part of the problem than the poor people

are.

The unemployment insurance benefit has some $5 billion in

surplus, of which the federal government is only the custodian. The Royal Bank

last year made a profit of $1 billion, and this year that profit will be more

than $1 billion, so I can imagine that they still want, and others like them, to

create and reap the benefits of this country while the poor are just allowed to

have something to eat.

Mr. Paul Martin, in his budget, the Finance Minister,

announced the government's intention to reduce the overall size of the

unemployment insurance program by a minimum of 10 per cent, and achieve

additional cost savings through administrative changes in the unemployment

insurance program. Paul Martin, the minister; now, do you remember? He had

ships, and then he got them under flags of convenience, and instead of hiring

Canadian sailors for good wages he had them crewed by foreign sailors for dirt

wages. It is all right for the Minister of Finance federally to talk out of a

comfortable pew, but what about the boatmen in Bonavista North, or what about

the inshore fishermen who are left down where I came from? We know the

moratorium is in place, but there are still people able to do some fishing, crab

and lump and lobster, black-backs.

This government we have here in Newfoundland is not willing

to fight for the people of this Province. They criticized Peckford for Ottawa

bashing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I will tell you one thing; you might

criticize me for a lot of thing, but you will not criticize me for keeping my

mouth closed.

Peckford fought for Newfoundland. He fought the Liberals in

Ottawa, and he fought the Tories. Jim McGrath wasn't long a Minister of

Fisheries. Was it a week, eight or nine days, before Peckford turned on him on

an issue that was hurting the people of this Province? In six years, or

especially in the last two, has the Premier turned on his own Liberal

counterparts? Has his government? No. They can get away with what they like,

inflict any kinds of problems on this Province, and they do not say anything.

They do not say a word.

We are going through a bad time. The UIC is under attack,

TAGS is under attack, and the people of this Province are under attack. I would

say to this government to listen to their conscience, but that government never,

ever takes advice from strangers.

I live with the poor daily, I hear from the poor daily, and I

know other hon. members opposite and on this side hear from people who are

desperately looking for work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Well, I do not know about the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, but he is certainly not in this world. He is

not in the Newfoundland world. There is something radically wrong.

The people who call daily, and into the evening, and on the

weekends, are not calling to see how you are. They are not calling to wish you

well. They are calling because they are desperately looking for work, anything

at all to help them come over the top, anything at all to help them over the

winter, anything at all to put some grub on their table.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you vote for or against

Confederation?

MR. CAREEN: Against.

AN HON. MEMBER: Against Confederation? And you are up

(inaudible) UIC.

MR. CAREEN: We are in this country now, and it should not

always be an orphan's fight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, my people

might have been anti-confederates, they wanted Newfoundland to be brought in by

the front door and not dragged in by the back door like she was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that

the Chair has made a ruling.

MR. CAREEN: Newfoundland was a self-governing dominion.

She had every right as the rest of them and she should never have been dragged

in by the back door. Now as long as we are part of this country it should not

always have to be an orphan's fight for us at the table of Confederation to get

what is ours. How about the people - an orphans fight at the table of

Confederation. Yes, I was disappointed in Mulroney the day on the Atlantic

Accord when he said he was not afraid to inflict prosperity in Newfoundland. I

was insulted. We are a part of this country, anybody talking about inflicting

prosperity on us when we had all the natural resources going into Confederation,

we should have been in the richest province in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: They all did, sir, everyone of us and every

way we voted it all messed up the whole works.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I was glad to be able to get

up here today just to put forward a case for people I know, the ones that are

desperate, the ones that are able to work, the ones that don't hide away from

work, the ones that will take any kind of work and they are all under attack

now, the housewife, the construction worker, the tourist, the fishermen.

Temporary jobs are under attack, work is under attack and Newfoundland is under

attack.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise in this debate today. I wanted this

opportunity because I wanted to share some good news with the people of this

House and to let the people know that not everybody out in this Province has

been lying back and waiting for somebody to give them a cheque, not everybody in

this Province is out there crying out and saying: I got to have so many weeks

given to me because the federal government is there to do that and governments

are there to do that so they qualify me for unemployment insurance. I want to

tell them some good news about what is happening in a remote part of this

Province along the Coast of Labrador. Today, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in

our history we have a brand new state of the art fish processing facility

operating full time, flat out, full production in L'Anse-au-Loup, Labrador in

the Labrador Straits. The first time in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was talking to

an individual in Charlottetown, Labrador, right in the middle of the Coast of

Labrador, right in the middle, here we are the seventh day of November and that

gentleman told me that there were still people in that harbour fishing scallops

and have been for over twenty weeks this year. For the first time in our history

we have been doing that. So, Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation along the

Coast of Labrador because of the investments that we have made as one government

and as the federal government have made in having new operations in the Labrador

Straits, having a new crab plant in Cartwright, a modernized and upgraded crab

plant in St. Lewis and one in Mary's Harbour, Labrador. We now have greater

security in those communities then we have ever had in our history and that is

something to get up and boast about and be happy about.

Three years ago I had a call from the community of

Cartwright. There were 115 people in that community, 115 people out of a

population of some 700 that did not have enough weeks to qualify for

unemployment insurance. Now to me that was a very, very critical situation, an

unacceptable situation and one that I know the people there did not want to

tolerate. So we said we were going to try and develop a crab fishery off the

coast of that community and millions of dollars may have been necessary but we

did take a look at what we could do.

I know the CBC went in there and did a story where they had

people chained on to a building because they said there was no hope for them and

that everybody had given up on them. At the time I remember the CBC reporter

saying: Yes, there is a dream, there is somebody talking about a crab processing

plant in this community.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is only interrupting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he call a quorum?

AN HON. MEMBER: He called a quorum.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a quorum; there are lots of

people here. What's wrong?

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I call for the question, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

MR. SPEAKER: Question.

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

close the debate.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is recognized to close debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is standing.

This is not a place to provide colour commentary. I've

recognized the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to close the debate.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: I was never recognized by Your Honour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes he was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you were, right away.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: I was never recognized by the Speaker. I was

recognized by the government but I was never recognized by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite don't want to

participate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking on

a point of order!

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

The Chair can't determine whether it is a point of order

until I've heard the case. I wish hon. members to be silent, please.

MR. TOBIN: It is my point of order, Mr. Speaker, that if

the members opposite don't want to participate in this debate, if the Government

Whip doesn't want to keep a quorum in the House for his speakers, then we are

prepared to clue up the debate on it. No doubt about that, if they don't want to

do that. If they want to do it let us know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FUREY: The hon. member was recognized. He has fifteen

minutes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recalls recognizing the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West to close the debate. The Chair will recess for a few minutes to

check the tapes of Hansard and will come back and make a ruling.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, or the Table has checked the tapes of Hansard and

clearly what happened was that the hon. Member for Eagle River was speaking, he

sat and the question was called for, and the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia

West rose and the Chair did say that the hon. member, if he speaks now, closes

the debate, so I recognize the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to close

the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to prolong this

because I don't want to debate this. You said: if the hon. member speaks, he

closes the debate. I called for a point of order, I didn't speak in the debate,

I called for a point of order, when you said that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the Speaker's ruling and

(inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and so he should because that's

what happened.

MR. TOBIN: That's what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The tapes indicate what the Chair just ruled, so -

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Speaker, no problem.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There was a Speaker challenged in the

country the last few days, you know there could be another one.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have twenty minutes to clue up

the debate and that's fine.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the onus is on this government to

keep a quorum in the House. The onus, Mr. Speaker, called for a quorum; he rang

the bells because there was not a quorum in the House. This government, Mr.

Speaker, is responsible to maintain a quorum in this House at all times. There

was not a quorum in the House. Your Honour, knows full well that there was not a

quorum in this House; he rang the bells to call in the members. Your Honour rang

the bells to call in the members and the members came in; and I don't know if

Your Honour ever made reference to the fact that there was a quorum present

after. I don't even know if that was said, I would say to hon. members, I am not

even sure if that was said.

But if this government, Mr. Speaker, wants to run and hide,

wants to adjourn the House, refuses to debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Island on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, there is no running and hiding.

There were twelve hon. members sitting on this side of the House listening to

the Opposition motion for today. Let Hansard show that there was one speaker,

one member on the other side sitting there, thirteen people sitting in the

House; one sitting to listen to their motion -

AN HON. MEMBER: Their motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Their motion - twelve on this side and

all hon. members very close to the House.

Now, whether or not - and to call, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would say to the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island -

there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: The fact of the matter is, the Member for

Mount Scio - Bell Island doesn't want to debate this in the House, doesn't want

to stand up, Mr. Speaker, and become part of the debate, wants to run away,

doesn't want to keep a quorum in the House, hide from his constituents, let them

do it, Mr. Speaker, let them do it. If the members opposite don't want to

support this, we will know what is going to happen when they call Division, we

will know what's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know, he is

here in this House long enough, that it is up to the government to maintain a

quorum in the House and not the Opposition, and the government didn't do it.

That's why the Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't have to have a quorum.

MR. TOBIN: I don't have to have a quorum, I am not the

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I didn't. No, no, I didn't.

We will, Mr. Speaker, in another fifteen minutes, stand in

this House and have a vote as to whether or not we want an emergency employment

program in this Province or whether we don't. All members will have an

opportunity to stand in their places and tell their constituents whether they

want to have an employment emergency program in this Province or whether they do

not, Mr. Speaker. That's what is going to take place in a few minutes and I hope

the members will have an opportunity to stand and say what's going to happen. I

hope the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island will stand and let us know whether

he supports an employment program for the people of his district, or whether he

does not.

It is too bad the Member for Eagle River did not get to bring

in his amendment, I say to members opposite, and bail them out from voting

against this resolution. That is what is going to happen. If the members

opposite do not want an emergency program we are going to know in a matter of a

few minutes, because there is a resolution that we are going to be voting on.

This government has been silent, they have been intimidated, and they are

prepared to sell out Newfoundland for the benefits of their cousins in Ottawa.

That is what is going to happen.

MR. WOODFORD: Kissing cousins.

MR. TOBIN: Kissing cousins, yes.

All of this, I would submit, because the Premier is

interested in something after politics. That is why we are in the situation we

are in today. That is why the government does not want to debate a resolution.

That is why the government fell down

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is

definitely misleading this House. He said that the members on this side did not

want to debate this motion. The record will show that it was this member who was

debating the motion, who got interrupted by the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, and there was not one of his colleagues over there who wanted to talk

about this motion. So let it be fair and square on his shoulders; you were the

one who was playing partisan political games with this particular serious issue,

and not this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

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

The hon. Member for Eagle River cannot be permitted to say

that the Member for Burin - Placentia West is deliberately misleading this

House, which he said, and he must withdraw it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I never said it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You did say he was deliberately

misleading the House, and you must withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Eagle River made an

unparliamentary remark, I would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I did not say deliberately

misleading this House. I did not say it. Obviously if I did say that it would be

unparliamentary and I would withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: Well, are you withdrawing it or not?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I did not say it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it takes a man to stand up and

withdraw something.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: The bottom line is that the member can stand

and try to chew my time all he likes. They refused to participate in this debate

for fear that they may do something that would jeopardize their leader getting a

job. That is the situation. Why is the minister and the Premier and other

members over there not taking on the federal government for trying to cut the

guts out of a social net within this Province? Why are they not bringing in

funding for an emergency response program for the men and women of this Province

who really need it? Why are they not doing that? Why the silence? Why not keep a

quorum in the House to hear the Member for Eagle River participate in the

debate, I would ask members opposite. That is what is going on here today. It is

too bad Danny never got in his resolution. Tom, you are right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Eagle River that I recognized

the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand the frustration of the Member for Eagle

River when his colleagues walked out and refused to listen to him, did not

maintain a quorum in the House. I can understand that, while he was left with

seven members opposite for his debate. I can understand why Your Honour had to

ring the bells to bring the crowd back. I can understand why he was so

frustrated that he refused to stand and continue debating. Why should be stand

when seven members opposite is what stayed to listen to him. I share his

frustration. I know why he said to the Government House Leader: I am not

speaking if you do not come in and listen to what I have to say, with this going

on. That is what happened. I was in the House; I know exactly what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Don't you worry about my colour; worry about

your own.

That is what happened in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, the whip is crowing now, eh?

Mr. Speaker, men and women in this Province are entitled to

an employment emergency response program. Why should the people who have worked

their entire lives, and worked hard, be forced to go to the social services

office? Why? Why is the minister sitting idly by and allowing that to happen?

Why is the minister not standing up and fighting for these people, Mr. Speaker?

Why, I ask all members opposite. Because it is a Liberal government that is in

office in Ottawa, it is a Liberal government that is going to bring

Newfoundlanders to their knees. That is why we refuse to participate in the

debate. That is why this government is not prepared to put up speakers. That is

why.

I hope they are going to stand and support this resolution. I

cannot see any men and women over there, regardless which district they are

from, standing and voting against an emergency response program. I cannot in all

sincerity see any men or women standing over there and voting against this

resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Deputy, deputy, deputy, deputy

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, deputy, deputy, deputy all you

like. What about Harry, Harry, Harry, the dog you were going to kill if you

didn't get in Cabinet? And drag the body to Tom Murphy's doorstep? What about

that? If he got in and you didn't. So don't talk about deputy, deputy, talk

about Harry, Harry.

We will see the courage that you have when you have to stand

and vote on this resolution. We will see if you stand for the people of

Newfoundland who don't have unemployment insurance, who don't qualify for UI

because of cutbacks by this government. We will see if you will stand and

support an emergency response program, I would say to members opposite. We will

see if that is what this minister will do. We will have an opportunity over the

next number of days to debate what is going to come down from Ottawa. We will

see if this minister will finally stand up and defend the rights of the people

of this Province. We will see what will happen.

I would like to say that I find it encouraging to know that

there are more government members in the House listening to my speech than chose

to listen to their own party representative when he spoke. I would like to

recognize that and put it on the record. Over twice as many chose to sit in this

House and listen to my speech as the seven who chose to listen to the Member for

Eagle River. That is what has happened. When the Speaker had to ring the bells

and call in the members. When the Member for Eagle River got mad and refused to

continue to speak because his colleagues wouldn't support him, and the

Government House Leader said: We will have to call the question. We will see

what will take place when they have to vote on this bill in a few minutes.

I would say to all hon. members, I would say to the Members

for Trinity North and Fortune - Hermitage. I would say to the Member for Fortune

- Hermitage, (inaudible) I called this past week relating to employment program.

I wonder if he will stand and support this. We will see what will happen. The

Member for Harbour Grace, we will see if he will stand and support this

resolution, or if he will say no to an employment program in this Province. All

of that will take place and all of that will happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The minister, Mr. Speaker, should be standing

up to Ottawa. He should be taking on Lloyd Axworthy. He should be doing what

George Baker is doing in standing up and fighting for Newfoundlanders, and

defending the rights of Newfoundlanders. That is what this minister should be

doing. Why the silence, I ask the minister? Why is the minister silent? Why has

the minister been silent in not standing up for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians? Why haven't you said anything?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You don't, okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

didn't have much trouble standing up when John Crosbie was up there and

criticizing everything he did. They didn't have any difficulty attacking the

Mulroney government every opportunity they got. Why the change of heart? You

were up tearing the life out of Crosbie every opportunity you had so why is it

now, `Yes, Lloyd,' `Yes, Lloyd?' Why is that happening, Mr. Speaker? Why was the

Member for Eagle River, when he was standing up in this House

day-in-and-day-out, attacking John Crosbie, when Crosbie had to take him on at a

meeting? He said one word to him and he never spoke for the rest of the day.

MR. WOODFORD: Look at 1989.

MR. TOBIN: We all know about that, too, in Ottawa, Mr.

Speaker. Why did that take place?

AN HON. MEMBER: We got rid of Crosbie. We threw him out,

didn't we?

MR. TOBIN: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: We will get rid of you next time.

MR. TOBIN: Probably you will. There is no doubt about

that, Mr. Speaker, but you will never get rid of me for the reasons that they

should get rid of you, for betraying the people who elected me. They will never

get rid of me for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The will never get rid of me for standing up

and voting against the wishes of my constituents. They will never get rid of me

for cuddling up to a Premier and selling out the people who are unemployed in

this Province. They will never get rid of me for that, and they will never get

rid of me for threatening to kill the Premier's dog, I say to the member

opposite.

I don't know why government members don't want to get

involved in this discussion. I don't know why they don't want to participate in

the debate. I don't know why they didn't let the Member for Eagle River bring in

his resolution.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They know the word from Ottawa but they

are not telling us. They feel so ashamed they won't participate.

MR. TOBIN: That's the truth. Sure, they know the word

from Ottawa. Why does George Baker know it and they don't know it?

AN HON. MEMBER: They have no shame.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, can you muzzle that from over

here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Speaker,

(inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Division

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

All those in favour of the resolution, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. W.

Matthews, Mr. Sullivan,