The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the House to join with me in wishing happy birthday to a very special Newfoundlander who is celebrating her 100th birthday today. The lady of whom I speak, Mr. Speaker, is Dr. Bobbie Robertson, whom I would like to add is also a constituent of mine.

Dr. Robertson emigrated to Newfoundland in the early 1930s from Dundee, Scotland. She went to work with the Commission of Government at that time and was involved in the land settlement schemes in such areas as Markland, Harricott and Lourdes, to name a few. In 1942, Mr. Speaker, she was appointed private secretary to the first trade commissioner for Canada appointed to Newfoundland and held that position until Confederation.

With Confederation and the withdrawal of the Canadian Mission, she continued the operations of the office by working with numerous German, Japanese and other industries interested in establishing themselves in Newfoundland trade. Upon her retirement in 1967, she was the only woman ever employed in such a position in Canada.

Over the years, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Robertson developed a great interest in Newfoundland and its history, and following her retirement in 1967 became the office secretary to the Newfoundland Historical Society and has devoted many years to carrying out the aims and objectives of that organization.

Her contribution to the preservation of Newfoundland history has been invaluable. Over the years she accumulated hundreds of files about people, settlements, ships and general knowledge about a province she adopted and no doubt, fell in love with. Memorial University recognized Mrs. Robertson's contribution to the Province by conferring upon her an honourary Doctor of Laws degree in 1984.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government I extend congratulations to Dr. Robertson on her 100th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the official opposition, I wish to join with the remarks of the Member for Waterford - Kenmout, in congratulating Dr. Bobbie Robertson on her 100th anniversary and in praising her for her tremendous contribution to our Province since her arrival here from Scotland many years ago.

I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of being seated on the stage of the Arts and Culture Centre as Minister of Education when Memorial University conferred on Bobbie Robertson her honourary Doctor of Laws degree in 1984. That was quite a moving ceremony, and it is appropriate that the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, the Minister of Social Services, take time here today on Dr. Robertson's 100th anniversary to remind us of the outstanding contribution that she has made to public life in Newfoundland over a great number of years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the members of this hon. House that I am in receipt -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on Statements by Ministers?

DR. GIBBONS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not called that yet. I was about to. I was just waiting for that period that we have not classified yet. Now it is Ministerial Statements.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I wish to inform the members of this hon. House that I am in receipt of a report from the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on the referral by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for proposed rates to be charged Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited and Hydro's rural customers. The report contains a total of twenty-two recommendations, many of which relate to technical, accounting or regulatory issues. Of particular interest to members are the Board's recommendations with respect to electrical rates.

The Board recommended that the rate which Hydro charges Newfoundland Light and Power Company remain unchanged. The Board also recommended continuance of the existing policy of having Hydro's rural customers, connected to the Island's Electrical Grid, pay the same rates as customers of Newfoundland Light and Power Company and Isolated Rural Customers (served by diesel or related generation) charged the same rates as all other customers for the first 700 kilowatt-hours of electrical consumption per month. It went on to recommend, however, that in Isolated Rural areas, the rates for electrical consumption in excess of 700 kilowatt-hours per month, rise by 10 per cent on May 1, 1992. Similarly, the Board recommended that certain "preferential" rates currently enjoyed by fish plants and selected other businesses and/or educational institutions operating in Isolated Rural Areas also have their electrical rates increased effective May 1, 1992 (with these rates varying from 5 per cent to 15 per cent or more).

Mr. Speaker, while the Public Utilities Board is required to offer its recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council with respect to electrical rates, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is not obliged to accept these recommendations. Indeed the Electrical Power Control Act contemplates that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize alternate rates.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has approved the rates recommended by the Public Utilities Board for Newfoundland Light and Power Company, for the Interconnected Rural Customers of Hydro and the policy of having Hydro's Isolated Rural Customers charged the same rates as others for the first 700 kilowatt-hours of electrical consumption per month. However, the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it to be in the public interest to vary the rates recommended by the PUB with respect to other rural rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The Lieutenant Governor in Council has approved the continuance of the existing rates and the existing manner for altering these rates charged to Isolated Rural Customers for consumption in excess of 700 kilowatt-hours per month and the existing preferential rates charged by Hydro to certain rural customers and the existing manner for changing these rates. In short, Mr. Speaker, this means that not only will the electrical rates charged by Hydro to Newfoundland Light and Power and the Interconnected Rural Customers remain unchanged, but so will the rates charged to Hydro's Isolated Rural Customers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the appropriateness of rural electrical rates is of vital importance to all electrical consumers in our Province. While the PUB offered comment on this matter during Hydro's recent rate referral, the issue was being discussed within the context of Hydro's revenue requirements. My colleagues have therefore decided to ask the PUB to conduct an inquiry on issues relative to the supply of electricity to isolated rural areas of the Province. The terms of reference for such a referral by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the PUB are currently in preparation.

I trust that all members of this Honourable House will greet this news with pleasure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement, a statement of which also the so-called independent consumer advocate called my office before lunch asking for a copy when I received it. So I thank the minister for the copy.

I reject the statement made across the way that it is the first time in the history of Newfoundland because I do believe that a previous Progressive Conservative administration reversed a PUB ruling, as well, so it is not the first time, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the very fact that we had to have a PUB hearing at all was due to the fact that the government withdrew a $30 million subsidy to rural Newfoundland. The very fact that we had to have a hearing at all was due to the budgetary measures of this government and the withdrawal of the $30 million subsidy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: And, Mr. Speaker, the day that the Public Utilities Board report came out, I put out a press release recommending that the rural increases be rejected by Cabinet. The former Minister of Transportation, a few days later, was on the radio making a similar recommendation. A week or so later, the so-called independent consumer advocate was on the radio making a similar recommendation.

As I indicated, the independent consumer advocate called me before lunch looking for a copy of the minister's statement. So much for independence.

The other thing I would like to mention is that there is going to be a study. So this is a freeze for the time being, but what we are talking is a reprieve for rural customers, a reprieve until there is an election, possibly. Maybe that is what they are all about.

But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day in the history of this Province when a Minister of the Crown has to stand in his place and say, We are pleased to announce we are not going to put the shaft to rural Newfoundland.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: I have a question for the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations in the Province.

During this past month, on April 9th, I think, to be specific, there were some policy changes at Workers' Compensation with respect to benefits for injured workers. I refer specifically to the change that occurred with respect to injured nurses, whereby they were previously eligible for training up to three years - re-training, that is. In view of the fact that these workers were injured while on duty, is it not the obligation of the board to continue the re-training to help get these workers back into the work force?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for his question. An issue which I might point out to the hon. member and to everybody in the House that the Board at the Workers' Compensation Commission has been reviewing for some time, is the whole area of rehabilitation, as covered by Workers' Compensation.

They were hoping, actually, to not make any changes in their rehabilitation policy until all of the changes that are likely to occur were announced at the same time. I indicated to them that it is going to take us another little while to make the total number of changes that are going to be necessary in the whole area of Workers' Compensation to keep the system viable for injured workers in the long term. So they decided that because they had done a major review of rehabilitation needs for all classes of workers, not only nurses, but all classes of workers, that they now wanted to institute their new policy as of April, this year, and they have gone ahead and done that.

There have been some changes impacting on nurses, but there are changes in the whole rehabilitation policy to make sure that the obligation and the commitment that is required from Workers' Compensation to see that an injured worker can go back into a workplace with somewhere close to the same level of earnings is met. It does not necessarily indicate a particular job, it indicates a level of earnings that they were accessing prior to their injury. That is the motivating force and the driving force behind the new policy that was announced and is now in effect at the Workers' Compensation Commission.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister failed to address the question but I will get on to another one about the same policy. The minister has failed to inform people of the change that occurred in the ease back program, whereby injured workers who were engaged in a work search could find an employer who would give them employment and it would be subsidized at 100 per cent for up to six months. This has now been changed to six weeks, and a further sliding scale for the weeks that follow after. Why has the minister not made this information public so that the workers engaged in the program could inform potential employers of the changes, and are there other changes implemented in this policy that we do not yet know about?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there may very well be any number of things that are occurring within the Workers' Compensation Commission that I, as minister, would not make known to the public. In case the hon. member doesn't know, the Workers' Compensation Commission operates independent and separate from the provincial government. It is not part of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations. We appoint the Board, we administer the Act under which it is established, and every five years by legislation there is a statutory review which has been conducted and which we are now considering the recommendations from. I might point out, as well, for the hon. member and all hon. members present that when the last review was done prior to that with some thirty or forty-odd recommendations, practically none of them were acted upon by the previous administration, and part of this review left over a whole group of those which are referred again to this administration which will now do something about them.

In terms of individual programs of the Workers' Compensation Commission, there is, in fact, absolutely no obligation or commitment and it is not even normal practice for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to be going around advising the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, employers and/or workers, as to what the programs and policies of the Workers' Compensation Commission are. That is done separately and independently. It is an independent operation that is arm's length removed from government for very good reason. They, themselves have their own staff, their own PR group and so on which advises people through their own mechanisms as to what the programs are, what the changes are, and when they come into effect.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Let me ask the minister this, then: Is he aware that on December 6, 1990, the Minister of Labour said in this Legislature, "The last review committee was appointed in November, 1986. Most of its recommendations have been implemented by the Commission but a few issues remain outstanding"? How does the minister square that with what he just said? Now, either that minister was not telling the truth or this minister is not telling the truth. Now, what is it? And is the minister able to tell this House if the workers who are already employed in the ease back program, that is, those who have entered an agreement with an employer for a six-month period, will be affected by this latest change or will it only apply to workers after April 9?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to the first part of the question, there is absolutely no difference in my answer and the previous minister's. I point out when I answer that question, that any and all of the very serious recommendations relating to the financial situation of Workers' Compensation and whether or not it is going to be viable in the long term were never addressed by the previous administration.

I will point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that what the previous administration did in response to the last statutory review was typical of what they have done with many reports and reviews put before them. They implemented the easy little decisions that could be administratively done in a day or two. Anything that required major policy decisions or implementation by changing legislation and making real decisions was not done by the previous administration.

With respect to changes in terms of the issues being addressed today, either in rehabilitation or ease back, if you want to check - I don't know the exact date of implementation. I know the rehabilitation one was intended to be April 1, this year. If you want to look at what applies as to a date forward and a date before, I can have the information checked through the Commission, because, as I indicated before, I do not make it my business and it is not the concern of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations other than in a regulatory sense and making sure that the law of the land as it applies to Workers' Compensation is as it should be, and that the major issues are being addressed as are now before government as a result of the last statutory review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I guess there was an answer of some kind in all of that but I am not sure anyone knew what it was. The minister has had the Workers' Compensation Board report for several months now. The Throne Speech has alluded to major changes. When does the minister intend to present legislation to this House, so we can be made aware of what these changes are going to be, or is it going to come out bit by bit in policy announcements, obscure policy announcements that no one knows. When is it going to come to this Legislature?

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

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

It is our intention, if we can reach final decision-making -because we are considering the many recommendations now. There are some forty-five of them. There probably would have been about half of that had it been dealt with the way it should have been with the last review. But, in fact, we are now in the final processes of decision-making, and we are not sure if we can reach the goal or not, but it is certainly our hope to have decisions made so that we can introduce necessary legislative changes and amendments before this sitting of the House of Assembly closes. That is our target. If we can reach that at all, we certainly will.

Now, what the implementation date for the effective changes will be, is another issue, but in terms of presenting to the Legislature any changes in legislation that are required, we are hoping to have the draft of that in this Legislature before this sitting or this session closes for the spring.

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

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

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the minister if he or his department would have any figures on the extra costs to municipalities in the Northeast Avalon area, particularly St. John's, Paradise, the Hogan's Pond area, the increased costs to the municipalities of the amalgamation and the savings to government departments, his own and the Department of Highways, because of the amalgamation in the Northeast Avalon?

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

MR. HOGAN: That is a very good question to which I do not have the answer, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly try to get all the information compiled for the hon. member and have it delivered tout de suite.

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

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

I appreciate the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, but while he is compiling that information, and I would imagine he would probably have this much of it compiled already, would the minister be able to inform the members of this House and particularly the residents of the Goulds, what the costs would be if this government phased in the tax increases that the people of the Goulds have to suffer because of the amalgamation?

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

MR. HOGAN: I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member has his calculator and compiled the figures after the compilation of figures that I give him that he would be able to figure it out for himself, if not I will do it for him.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the reaction of the minister, because I figured when he was put in that department, he would understand what the taxpayers and municipalities go through. I realize the minister who was there before him came from a St. John's council background and he was a bit more removed from the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this minister would laugh at the people of the Goulds who have to pay 100 per cent to 125 per cent increase in their taxes.

I ask the minister, would he consider setting up someone in his department to be able to review the complaints, or the problems, I would say, that the people in the Northeast Avalon are having dealing with the new amalgamation. One of the complaints that such a person in the department might be able to look after was the promise that staff from the amalgamated areas would be hired by the existing municipalities, which is not happening, Mr. Speaker. They were hired, but they are declared redundant now.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister have this staff person look into the possibility of phasing in taxes for the Goulds area? And with respect to legitimate problems such as was mentioned last night at the City Council meeting, where a farmer, having been chased out of a residential area and wanting to set up in a farming area can now be refused by City Council, would this person in the department be available to the general public to look into these types of complaints, Mr. Speaker, so that the minister can report back to this House occasionally to see that these problems have been solved?

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

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are all very good questions, actually. In my second reply I might have been somewhat facetious because I thought I had answered it in the first question. Anyway, having listened to the number of questions that the member now presents, the answer certainly would take quite a bit of tabling, and I will be delighted to have anybody in the department entertain questions from groups, councils in the area, or representatives of the people who might have questions along the lines of amalgamation.

I will say to him that in some instances - unfortunately not in all instances - I thought there were transition teams in place addressing all of these, but I found out yesterday from my hon. friend that it was not working quite right in one particular area. I have put in motion the necessary committee to look after that. If the hon. member is aware of any other areas that need that kind of attention, the department will have it done.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just asked the minister if, initially, he would have one person in the department, not just anyone to answer these questions, probably a deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister, someone who did some of the studies, to zero in on the problems. The main focus, Mr. Speaker, to which I asked the minister to have his staff person give his attention is to the phasing in of the taxes for the people in the Goulds, since people are about to start losing their homes in that area because of tax increases.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

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

MR. HOGAN: The idea of having one person address these questions and the serious matters that the hon. member brings up is not a novel one, Mr. Speaker. It is under consideration. Now that he has recommended it I will take it under further advisement and see what can be done.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and our globe trotting Premier, I guess I should address my question to the hon. the Government House Leader, the Minister of odds and ends and everything else in the government.

Has the government received, I ask the minister, a request from certain business interests to transfer the crab processing license at Little Bay Islands in my district of Green Bay to Fleur de Lys in the district of Baie Verte - White Bay?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, I will take that question under advisement and report to the House as soon as possible.

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

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Insofar as the crab processing license is the basis of the economy of Little Bay Islands, which is an isolated island community served by a ferry system, would the minister categorically reject the notion of a transfer of such a license right off the bat rather than take it under consideration?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it would be imprudent to do that, to reject something out of hand. I think that in fairness to the minister we have to ask his department for the facts surrounding this issue, take a good look at the facts and make a determination. You just can't do something blindly. We will take that under advisement and do what is proper.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the minister that this is not a matter of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul', this is a matter of killing Peter to pay Paul. So there is a moral dimension to this particular issue, and I ask him, Does not this administration see it as an immoral act to take the single industry away from an island community and move it to a nearby district, resulting in the death of that island community?

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

MR. FUREY: We hear one side of an issue, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you, we don't want to kill Peter and we don't want to kill Paul, and we don't want to kill Alvin. We will take the facts and deal with them the best way possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions for the Minister of Finance. During the last election, this government campaigned on a platform of building the economy through small business. We now see, of course, that the government is blaming all their economic woes on Hibernia, the fisheries and, more importantly, the federal government. Would the minister like to tell us what plans he has to put programs in place which would assist small business in these tough economic times?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have set up Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the arm of government by which small businesses can get advice and help and things of that nature. That is the main effort. We have also lowered the paper burden on small businesses to some extent, and done a number of other things. Small businesses have very little complaint with this present government, unlike the problem they had with the previous government.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we saw how government lowered the paper burden by imposing a payroll tax on small businesses. Any small business bigger than a bull's-eye shop now pays a payroll tax in this Province. Would the minister like to tell us, since he wants to help small business, will he put back in place a program that he cancelled, which was a tax holiday for new businesses for the first three years in business, that the minister cancelled last April 1? Will he reinstate that program to assist new small business to get started in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker. That was the silliest thing that has ever come about. It was instituted by the other people. They were encouraging people - what they did was, a small business would have its income tax forgiven. Now, that would be great for anyone who made a profit - and they did not need government assistance in that case. But the people who needed assistance were the people who were having it hard and they would get no relief under that system. So we cut out that silly program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the minister is concerned about small businesses that need assistance. Would the minister therefore tell us, will he provide that assistance in the same manner as he did to fishermen who had loans from the Fisheries Loan Board? Will he now forgive the interest on loans from small businesses which are losing money and have loans from Enterprise Newfoundland or Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation? Will he treat small businesses the same as he treated fishing industries?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, small businesses are handled through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and through the Economic Recovery Commission. Many small businesses go to see these individuals, and there is a variety of programs that the Minister of Development could describe in great detail to handle these whole questions of financing and starting up small businesses. Quite a number of them have been started and quite a number of them have been assisted and are being assisted.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is some assistance being given by Enterprise Newfoundland, I don't deny that. What I am asking the minister is will he give some break to businesses - and the Minister of Development may well answer, because he and I have had conversations - that are still today paying 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent interest rate on loans that they had a couple of years ago to get started?

Today you are losing money the same way as fishing interests were losing money. Will the minister give those companies the same sort of break? Will the minister take the Premier's words from December 15, 1989, in responding to a question from my friend from Fogo, when the Premier said, 'It was an example of the former government's misadministration of a program, where they provided help for one group and excluded others in what I think is quite an unfair way. Will the minister now be fair with these private enterprises and treat them the same as other interests? Where is the fairness and balance?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the member is puffing up and making a case where there is no case. Each business that wishes to discuss its finances with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador does so. Each enterprise is considered on its own merits. Sometimes businesses come to see the Minister of Finance, too, and there are generally three or four per day that come and we have a chat about this and that, particularly with respect to taxes, and usually things are worked out quite well. The business community has very little complaint with this government, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services. The minister is aware that Section 49 of the Child Welfare Act requires all persons who have knowledge of a child being abused or in need of protection must report that to the Director of Child Welfare or to a social worker. Can the minister advise the House whether indeed any persons have ever been prosecuted for failure to comply with that section of the act?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question but I will certainly find it out and report back to the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister had read the Hughes Commission Report he would know that up at least until the time that the Commission reported to the House there were no prosecutions that had taken place under that section of the act. So I want to ask the minister whether he sees - there may have been a change since then, which is why I ask the question - whether he sees that as a problem that people do not, and Commissioner Hughes said that the government ought to enforce that section. Now it seems a bit surprising, and perhaps is the minister surprised, that he needs a Royal Commission to tell the government to enforce its own legislation, and can I ask the minister what plans he has to assist in the prevention of child abuse by informing the public of their obligations under that section?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows of course, we have some thirty-five recommendations contained in the final submission of the Hughes Report. As I have stated already publicly, we will take the time, as a government, working with our officials and with outside agencies and other interested parties, to consider those recommendations. So I cannot comment specifically as to the government's intention on any one of those recommendations or any matter pertaining to those recommendations at this time, because as the member knows, government itself was not party to that report up until last Friday, except for a few of the ministers.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can explain why it is he has to consider whether or not he will accept the recommendation that tells the government to enforce its legislation.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I could if I wished, comment specifically on this question, but as government has already made the statement, and I have certainly made it on behalf of government, that we will not comment specifically on any of the recommendations until we have had time as a government to consider them in the light of the Hughes Report, even though his question could be related separately to affairs and dealings of the department, the fact of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GULLAGE: The fact of the matter is that we do have the Hughes Report; we do have the thirty-five recommendations; and we do want to take the time to consider those recommendations before we comment on either one of them specifically.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. In the absence of the non-elected Justice Minister I would like to direct my question to the House Leader. Recently solicitors on behalf of the Department of Justice, sought and received a court injunction to ban Dereck O'Brien's book "Suffer Little Children" for sale on the Avalon Peninsula. Would the minister advise why a book that was written by a local author and published by a Newfoundland and Labrador company was banned, and at the same time has allowed "Unholy Orders", written by a TV personality and published by Penguin's International to be sold on the Avalon Peninsula?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a decision was made by a justice of the court that the opening, or allowing the sale of the book could possibly interfere with a court case that was coming up. This was a decision made by a court justice, Mr. Speaker, not made by government. I hesitate to comment on a decision made by a justice of the court except to remind hon. members that Justice Hughes indicated that it was the right thing to do, to cut out the pages relating to this case from his report before it was released. So it is a comment of a justice about the same type of matter. I don't want to take it beyond that, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The minister realizes also it was the government that asked for the court injunction.

My supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that by banning this particular book it is estimated that the company and the writer are going to lose approximately $200,000 in revenue? Now, would the minister advise if government will compensate this particular publisher and author for loss of revenue because of government's action with regard to this particular book?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that it was a decision of a court judge and not a decision of government. Government has an obligation to go to the court at any point in time where it feels that there may be a problem created in terms of the administration of justice in the Province. In this instance we were bound to go to the court and indicate the possibility that existed. The court examined the evidence on both sides and agreed. So, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened in this particular case.

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

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplementary to the minister: I guess the minister is aware that there are approximately 300,000 people living on the Avalon Peninsula and, quite possibly, out of this 300,000 people surely goodness twelve or fifteen people could have been found for a pending jury. So, therefore, why would the minister ban the book "Suffer Little Children" on the Avalon Peninsula? And by doing this, what avenue does he have now to collect the books that people on the Avalon Peninsula already have that could also affect a pending jury? How is he going to collect the books that have already been bought and used, and used by members on the opposite side and this side? How are we going to get these books back from circulation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has made a decision. Maybe members opposite, when they were in power, interfered with decisions of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland but this government is not going to.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising today as minister responsible for the Status of Women to table the annual report of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the report of Public Tender Act exceptions for March 1992.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here signed by thirty-one residents of Little Bay Islands in the district of Green Bay, and the prayer of the petition is as follows: We the undersigned residents of Little Bay Islands hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to instruct the hon. Minister of Fisheries not to approve the transfer, either temporarily or permanently, of the crab licence of S.T. Jones and Sons Limited to any other area in the Province.

As I indicated this particular petition is signed by thirty-one residents, a small fraction of those who attended a public meeting the other night in Little Bay Islands on this particular matter.

Mr. Speaker, last year the government saw fit to disrupt the ferry services to Little Bay Islands. There was much to do about it in the media, protests, tie-ups, police intervention, etc., that threatened the viability of the crab operation at Little Bay Islands. I recommended over and over again to the government on every possible opportunity in this House and in the media that they drop the silly idea of trying to service the two islands with one boat, and I was very pleased that in this Spring's Budget they came along and actually reinstated the regular ferry service for both islands which would certainly enhance the viability of the crab processing operation on Little Bay Islands which last year had a bumper year. Little Bay Islands is one of the few places in Newfoundland that actually has to import workers from the mainland of the Island of Newfoundland to work in the fish plant when she is working at full steam.

Mr. Speaker, we have certain business interests who claim to have bought, or are in the process of buying, the processing plant at Little Bay Islands and are trying to get the local residents, the council, and the citizenry at large, to agree to a 'temporary transfer' of the licence to the Liberal district of Fleur de Lys where I understand the Quinlan Company has a crab processing line as well. Presumably, they would lease or rent space from them on a temporary basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place. I again want to remind hon. members about the undesirability of conducting so many meetings while the House is in session. I was barely able to hear the hon. member. Once we get noise all over the place it does nothing for the decorum of the House. It is coming from several directions, and I point out to hon. members again that we have this problem in this House which we have never had before and probably do not get in other Houses because of the tremendous space we have which is conducive to standing up and conducting meetings between the aisles, outside the aisles, at the end of seats and everywhere else, so I ask hon. members to please refrain from doing that as it does not help the Chair in maintaining order and decorum. I have done this on several occasions and ought not to have to do it again. I ask hon. members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier the business interest concerned wished to have the licence removed from Little Bay Islands. They say on a 'temporary basis' but I think we are all adults in this particular Chamber and we know that if a fish processing licence is transferred from an isolated island the chances of it getting back on that island and going into operation again are practically nil. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that this government should immediately, if it has already received, or if and when it does receive such a formal request from these business interests, reject out of hand the concept of transferring this licence.

I checked with the bureaucrats in the Department of Fisheries. The transfer of a licence from one geographic location to another is a rarity and it cannot be done at the bureaucratic level. It needs the signature of the Minister of Fisheries which, in this particular government, given the nature of the Wells' Administration, would also, of course, mean it would need the approval of the Premier himself.

To actually remove this licence from this island to another location would essentially kill the economy of Little Bay Islands and would start the Liberal resettlement program of the 1960s all over again. Little Bay Islands along with several other islands in the District of Green Bay resisted that program in the 1960s and today I have four islands served by causeways and two by ferry systems. One of those served by ferry systems has a viable, vibrant crab processing operation. Now we have nothing short of an act of economic piracy underway and government, if it hasn't already been asked - the minister didn't indicate earlier if they had been asked - will be asked, certainly, to acquiesce in that particular act of economic piracy.

As I indicated to the Minister of Development, who said he didn't want to kill Alvin, this is not a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is no alternative on Little Bay Islands. If you rob Peter in this particular case, you kill Peter in this particular case and give a licence to a community that already has a licence to process crab.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no moral or economic justification on the part of this government for even entertaining an application from the business interest concerned with regard to the transfer of this licence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not my last time on this. In the immortal words of John Paul Jones: I have just begun to fight.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to support the petition presented by my colleague from Green Bay. I want to say at the outset, that there seems to be a pattern, really, by the Minister of Fisheries. It is too bad he is not here today. A few days after he became the Minister of Fisheries, he immediately cancelled a crab licence that had been assigned to the St. Lawrence fish plant, a plant that has been crying out for resource since it was put there, after the Alcan Fluorspar Mines closed down in the late 1970s. Last year the minister approved the transfer of a crab licence to a location within his own district. And now we see another attempt, for whatever reasons, Mr. Speaker - there are those who have different reasons why this would be happening. One being that it might have something to do, again, with the recent Baie Verte by-election.

Now we see an island where the only source of livelihood is being threatened again by this government. I think it is absolutely ridiculous when you look at the struggle, Mr. Speaker, of the people in rural Newfoundland today to survive in the communities where they live, to look at the downturn in the fishing industry, to see a government that today would even entertain transferring a crab processing licence from a one-industry town to another community where there already is one.

Mr. Speaker, if someone on the other side would be so kind as to stand in their place in response to this petition and explain why the Minister of Fisheries and the government is even considering such a move. I would like to hear someone opposite explain that because, Mr. Speaker, it seems -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Health, yes, he will explain. He should sit down and relax, Mr. Speaker, because his form of resettlement is not connected with the transfer of crab processing licences, it is with the shutdown of hospitals and hospital beds in the Province.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Minister of Fisheries is not here because this request for this transfer cannot take place without the signature of the Minister of Fisheries. There has to be ministerial approval given for it.

In supporting the petition today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Bay of Islands -

AN HON. MEMBER: Little Bay Islands.

MR. MATTHEWS: Little Bay Islands.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, is it possible for a little vaccination, inoculation, of the minister so that we can at least get on with the business? This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, for the people concerned, I say to the Minister of Health.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: What does he care? That is right. He does not care about individuals dying so I am not surprised he does not care about communities dying, Mr. Speaker. The commonly referred to Dr. Death of the Provincial Government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by supporting the petition of the people, and I call upon the Minister of Fisheries to refuse the request to transfer the crab processing licence, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to this petition because I have some knowledge of it. It is unfortunate that the Fisheries critic in the Opposition took the matter so lightly and strayed away, but that is beside the point. I will make sure that the people of Little Bay Islands receive a copy of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, this is basically an attempt by one business to buy another business. The matter was brought to my attention. I suggested that the people of Little Bay Islands would get advice from their member on this issue, and it is regrettable that he chose to make this into a big political football instead of dealing with the issue which is at hand here. The issue is one company wants to buy another company. The people of Little Bay Islands do not want to lose their crab plant. This government supports the people of Little Bay Islands who do not want to lose their business, and that is why I am quite satisfied to support the prayer of this petition, Mr. Speaker. But I caution hon. members not to make this a big political football. It is not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The first we heard about it was when someone from Little Bay Islands called me - they just happened to know me - and said here is what is going on. Government has no knowledge of this, Mr. Speaker. But if the attitude of this member keeps up, it is going to get people's backs up and we don't know what will happen out there in Little Bay Islands because this is simply an attempt to make some politics on the back of an issue.

I was advised about the meeting which the hon. member attended. The people of Little Bay Islands had no intention of coming with a petition. They want to solve the problem. The hon. member immediately saw an opportunity to make some political points, and he rushes out with a petition, gets all the signatures, and it doesn't help to solve the problem one little bit, Mr. Speaker. But I will tell the hon. member to tell his constituents on Little Bay Islands that this administration is concerned with them, and we will endeavour to do all in our power to ensure that if there is any way that licence can be kept that in consultation with the Minister of Fisheries it will be kept there in spite of the fact that the hon. member for the district is trying to make cheap, low-down, political points on the issue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. DECKER: And they will receive Hansard!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEWLETT: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I attended a meeting in Little Bay Islands at the request of the council and the citizenry of Little Bay Islands and received a round of applause as I entered the hall before I even opened my mouth. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members again that the presentation of a petition does not give members the right to carry on a debate on either side of the House. I ask hon. members to be mindful of that as well.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Notice was given yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the motion for a debate today was the motion of the Member for Torngat Mountains, Number 9. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, now that members have had an opportunity to read the Orders of the Day and Motion 13, which notice was given on April 10th, whether or not members would now be prepared, without debate, to pass Motion 13 as it is: the recognition of a day of mourning for workers disabled, killed or injured in the workplace, and ask the Government of Newfoundland to declare such a day as an official day of mourning. There is no holiday involved. It is simply a recognition of that day officially by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have a word to say on this point of order. I am just reading Hansard from yesterday where the matter was raised yesterday as well. I was flabbergasted actually to be reading the response of the Government House Leader. He has had twenty-four hours to reconsider it. Perhaps he will have a look at it from a different point of view. I think the request made by the member is a pretty reasonable request. The request is made by the member on behalf, particularly of the trade unions in the Province, who I guess have asked him to submit and put on the Order Paper such a resolution. Now I understand the Government House Leader says we are a part of Canada, and Canada has already declared a day of mourning. Well that being the case, what harm can there possibly be in agreeing unanimously with little debate to support the resolution? Is there something in the resolution itself that I could not detect that irritates the government, because otherwise if we are part of the Government of Canada - I mean obviously I certainly would want to be associated with it. Mr. Speaker, if I might just for a second quote from the resolution very briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: If I might just interrupt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for a moment, it is now 3:00 p.m. and it is the obligation of the Chair to call for the motion of the day. I realize it is a point of order. The Chair will not say what it is not, but since it is the hon. member's own resolution, his side, he will understand.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, just very briefly as I was saying, the resolution asks that it be resolved that this House supports the recognition and designation of the 28th of April each year as a "Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured In the Workplace".

Now we already recognize it, as the House Leader points out correctly, because it is designated already by Canada, but in addition to that we recognize it as political parties. The Minister of Employment was there to lay a wreath at the ceremony yesterday. I was there on behalf of my party, and the member was there on behalf of his party, so we already do it.

If the District Trades and Labour Council, or whatever group is organizing that particular day of activity with - I do not know how many wreaths were laid, but quite a few. There was a huge crowd there yesterday, I must say, and they have asked that we designate it simply from a provincial perspective, from our own provincial House perspective. I ask the minister if he might reconsider the matter. It is not that serious, or not that important, and maybe give consideration to unanimous consent just so we can have it dealt with, because I think that is the purpose of the resolution. We are certainly prepared to support it.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. He says it is not an important matter, and I suggest it is a very important matter.

I gave my reasons yesterday, and they still stand today. I indicated that obviously everybody in the House supports the recognition of that day as a "Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace", and we went through a ceremony and so on. We all support that and recognize that, and the reason we do that is because the Government of Canada has declared that this is an official day of mourning. Now that has already been declared by the Government of Canada for all of Canada.

If the resolution was simply that we recognize and support this day, that is fine; but to me, when an hon. member brings in a resolution like this asking us to declare something that has already been declared by the federal government, I look upon it simply as grandstanding on his part. Now that is the way I explained it. So the reasoning that I gave yesterday still applies today. Obviously we recognize it. We have recognized it, and we support it, and there is nothing surer than that. And, in the second part, it has already been declared an official day of mourning for this Province and for the whole country, so again nothing can be accomplished by that except the hon. member, I believe, was doing some grandstanding. So that is the reason. I hope the Opposition House Leader understands. It is an important issue, and it is an important occasion. It is not an unimportant occasion, as the member states, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well that is what I heard, and it does not really have to be used as a political football in this House.

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

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

It is the Government House Leader who is creating the political football out of the issue. His party supports it. We support it. All he has to do is say, 'Yes, we support it' and it is passed. I did not say it was not an important issue. In fact, it is an extremely important issue, but it is a fairly simple request, and I cannot understand - I can understand the Government House Leader wanting to attack the NDP member for grandstanding. That is fair ball, if he wants to make some politics, but he said that. Now having said that, can we eliminate the political football and agree to pass the resolution unanimously? That is all. What is the reason for not doing it, aside from the fact that we are all a part of Canada? Is there some reason why we cannot do it otherwise? And is he aware if other jurisdictions have passed such a resolution, or designated a day of mourning?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, we are on a point of order. The Chair has heard enough to make a ruling. As I have indicated previously we are into Private Members' Day. The Chair knows what it ought to do on this. But I will entertain, since both stood, one comment from the Member for St. John's East and the Government House Leader and that should conclude the matter.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In reference to the comments of the Government House Leader talking about the Member for St. John's East grandstanding, this resolution was put on the Order Paper on April 10. It was the Opposition House Leader who yesterday raised it and sought unanimous consent, and I was obviously delighted to see him do that. But to suggest that it was grandstanding by me as an individual as opposed to a simple request to have this government to recognise an official day and to join in with the Government of Canada and as a government of Newfoundland, which it joins in many actions to do (Inaudible) very simple thing. Say: yes, we agree, we want to declare this an official day of mourning for this Province of Newfoundland as well.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the resolution says: that we direct the government to declare this day as an official day of mourning, and so on. That has already been done. The member is playing silly little games. It has already been done by the federal government for the whole of Canada and we participate in that as a province of Canada as every other province in this country I hope has done. So the members opposite are playing silly little political games with a very important issue that they should not be playing silly political games with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member asked that the House unanimously approve his resolution and that was the crux of the matter. It is not a point of order. I get the distinct impression that there is not unanimity in this matter. No point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains with his private member's resolution.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Back in February 28, 1980, I brought a resolution into this House asking for improved ambulance service on the coast of Labrador. I considered then one of - all members of the House supported that resolution - I figured then that was one of the most important resolutions that I as a private member could ever introduce into the House of Assembly.

Today I think it is fair to say that the resolution that I want to present today, I consider will go down in history. If this House passes this legislation today, passes this bill today - it will go down in history as one of the greatest things that has ever been accomplished by a House of Assembly anywhere in Canada.

Before I go further, I spoke to the House Leader earlier, and I understand the House Leader would be in agreement if it is okay that we would change the 'be it resolved' to read: BE IT RESOLVED that the government take the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to that of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I spoke to the House Leader before we started today and he saw no reason why we could not leave out that resolved and put this one in there in place of it and we will continue. I understand he may have some amendment to come afterwards. I will pass it over to the hon. member if he wishes. But: BE IT RESOLVED that the government take the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to that of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So as you can see that resolve will replace the resolve that is already there.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is not a normal thing we are doing here, obviously. The hon. member wanted to do this yesterday but I suggested that he do it today. All he is saying is that he wishes that the first 'be it resolved' be changed to what he just read out, and the second 'be it resolved' still stays there. Mr. Speaker, if he wants that to be his motion it is perfectly okay with me.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair wants to be certain. Again, for the precedence of this House it is not normal for a member to amend his own motion so I understand this is by agreement, so when some future Speaker looks at this ruling he will not wonder what the present Speaker did. We are doing this by unanimous agreement, by unanimous consent, by unanimity.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us get on to what this resolution is all about. Since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 we have the Province of Newfoundland and we have the portion we call Labrador, and today we have the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador but under our Terms of Union we have the Province of Newfoundland. Before I complete my few remarks this afternoon I hope to illustrate to all members here why we should all get together and take the first step - I say to all my colleagues to take the first step, and the first step is to get this House to approve that change, and once we get this House to approve that change the next step is to take it then and go to the House of Commons with it and let it be dealt with there. That is the second step but in order to do the second step you have to do the first step, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: My hon. colleague for Eagle River has interrupted right away and said the first step is already done. I was hoping he would say that, Mr. Speaker, because the first step is not done. Seeing he brought it up let me go back to May 28, 1964. I want to read this, Mr. Speaker, and let my hon. colleague for Eagle River understand what happened in 1964. The hon. Leader of the Opposition of the day, Mr. J. Greene brought forward the following resolution: I therefore move, seconded by the Member for Humber East that the government should take the necessary constitutional steps immediately to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That was May 28, 1964. What did the late J.R. Smallwood say? I want to say something else, Mr. Speaker. It was the shortest speech that J.R. Smallwood ever made in the Legislature and I will read word for word what he said. 'Mr. Speaker, it could do nothing but harm to Canada and Newfoundland to introduce this resolution into the Parliament of Canada at this particular time. For this reason we reject this irresponsible resolution and ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw it and if he will not withdraw it we will ask all the members of this House to vote against it.' That was the end of his speech, that was the speech of the late J.R. Smallwood in 1964.

Let it be recorded that when the vote was taken on May 28, 1964 those for the resolution were, Dr. Murphy, Mr. Renouf, the Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. A. Murphy. Mr. Speaker, the four opposition members at the time, those are the members who were for the resolution. Against the resolution - in fact the names that are there now also includes one by the name of Mr. Carter, who is also a member of the House now. Mr. Carter probably from Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir at that time, Ches Carter, so it was Mr. Carter at the time, Mr. Neary and Mr. Sparkes and Mr. Winsor, who was the Member for Northern Labrador at the time, Captain Earl Winsor, the late Captain Earl Winsor, and Mr. Hill, who was the Member for Southern Labrador at the time. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, at that time the Premier said it should not be done, but, if that had been done back in May 1964, we would not have the feeling of separation, the feeling of Labrador against Newfoundland or Newfoundland against Labrador, which exists in our Province today. That is our problem.

We have Labrador up there and it is like one of the members said at that time: we have a rainbow of gold in Labrador, we need Labrador, let us hold on to Labrador. But with a little change, Mr. Speaker. You know it may not mean very much to the Member for Carbonear but I suggest to the Member for Carbonear, come next month or two weeks from now, a lot of his constituents will be getting aboard their boats and going down to Labrador and taking the fish from there and bringing it back home. I say to the Member for Labrador, I say to him, a lot of his constituents - and so they should, I have no problem with that, but, remember this is some of the problems, they can see this happening every day. So let us call it one Province; the problem is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Well, it should be called the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what I am trying to say to the hon. member and before I finish today, also, I am going to ask that there be a free vote and at the same time I am going to ask for division at the end of my comments today, and I am sure all members of this Legislature will support this particular resolution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some people may be saying: what are the people saying, is there any more support around pertaining to this change? In the Labradorian, Rompkey supports the request to change the Province's name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WARREN: Rompkey. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to read some quotations because Mr. Rompkey made some very valid points here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: - Oh, I will read that too. Mr. Rompkey made very valid points here.

AN HON. MEMBER: The best MP we ever had in Labrador by the way.

MR. WARREN: In fact, I say to my hon. colleague and I think it is fair to say, the best MP that Labrador ever had was, Mr. Rompkey and, Mr. Speaker, when and if he retires, there will be large and good shoes to fill.

The Member of Parliament for Labrador says he supports the quest to have the Province's name changed from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Rompkey says: I hope and believe there will be widespread approval and support for this act all across the Province. Matters such as this must be initiated in the Province. Now Mr. Rompkey is a federal MP and I want to compare what Mr. Rompkey said and what my hon. colleague from Eagle River said on this particular issue.

Mr. Rompkey, is a federal MP, he has been up there now seventeen or eighteen years and he said: Matters such as this must be initiated in the Province, but once there is agreement on the matter, which I am asking for today, the Constitution of Canada can be amended with the consent of the Province and the federal government. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the federal member, Mr. Rompkey, saying these words, and I will repeat it again, Mr. Speaker, because apparently the Member for Eagle River does not understand. Matters such as this must be initiated by the Province, but once there is agreement on the matter, which I am asking for today -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are not.

MR. WARREN: Once there is agreement on the matter, Mr. Speaker - I am asking for agreement today - the Constitution of Canada can be amended with the consent of the Province and the federal government. Those are Mr. Rompkey's comments, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Now, what else does Mr. Rompkey say? He said, "The move is coming at an opportune time. What this says to the world is that Labrador is here, it is distinct and unique in culture and heritage but it is part of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is a part of Canada. We couldn't be doing this at a better time. This is the right time in Canadian history to assert who are we are and what we are part of." Now, Mr. Speaker, those are Mr. Rompkey's comments.

Now, I say to my colleagues, listen to the rest of Mr. Rompkey's comments. "The MHA for Eagle River does not agree."

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WARREN: "The MHA for Eagle River does not agree." He said, "The name of the Province is not an issue which needs to be addressed by the Province." Now, here, Mr. Speaker, we have a member of this Legislature, who is a member for Labrador, saying it is not an issue and it should not be addressed by this Province. If we don't address this problem, who is going to address it, Mr. Speaker? "It is not an issue," he said.

Now, Mr. Dumaresque says, "There is already a law which states Labrador must be included in any reference made towards the Province." Mr. Speaker, let me contradict my hon. colleague when he said that.

I have a letter here that was written by a Colonel on November 25, 1991. I wrote to National Defence because I was flying on a small plane on the Labrador Coast last fall when I noticed the in-flight book which was there. So I picked it up and started going through it. I looked up Mary's Harbour and right after Mary's Harbour was Newfoundland. So I got a little bit perturbed. I said, `Look, it is supposed to be Mary's Harbour, Labrador or, if we changed the name, Mary's Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. So I wrote a letter to National Defence because I was upset when I saw this particular book in the small plane, which they get every year, sort of as a direction book for all the airports in Canada. So I wrote the letter and they wrote a letter to another division up in Ottawa.

I want to read this letter into the record, what this Colonel said as it pertains to this particular letter which I wrote. He said:

"I refer to your letter of October 24, 1991. The Canada Flight Supplement, although distributed by the Department of National Defence, is published by Energy, Mines and Resources Canada.

"Enclosed is the reply received from EMR. It indicates that the approved name is the Province of Newfoundland. In order to effect an amendment to the Constitution, any official change to the name of the province would have to be staffed, officially, by the Province to the Federal Department of Justice."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is coming from the federal department saying that in order for anything to be changed it would have to be requested by the Province. This is what I am saying today, Mr. Speaker in my resolve, "BE IT RESOLVED that the constitutional steps be taken." And I ask this government to take those constitutional steps.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I go any further I want to say a special thank you, and I think all of us in this Legislature should say a special thank you to many, many people who have been saying this for years and years, but one person in particular. I am going to read for the record a copy of a letter this person sent to me a few days ago. In fact, he even said, "If you wish to read the following statement, please feel free to do so." Mr. Speaker, I want to do this for the record:

"There appears to be a growing sentiment that the gulf between the respect that Labrador is due and the respect that Labrador is given is widening. This feeling is understandable considering the many actions and policies over the years" - now he is not saying just in the last two years, he is saying over the years - "that have served to contribute to Labradorians sharing feelings of neglect. Given that Labrador has contributed to the Province in economic terms, it would only seem right that this Province start giving back. It would seem so petty for this Province to deny the people of Labrador our own identity. Giving to Labrador is not taking away from Newfoundland. In fact, we would both be enriched. How ironic it would be if Newfoundland, a province known far and wide for its hospitality, was to express hostility towards Labrador's simple desire for recognition.

In Labrador, isolation, underdevelopment and even poverty are still elements of day-to-day life. These factors have no doubt contributed to a deep-rooted sense of discontent and disenchantment. Refusing us our own identity, washing it over with arrogance, ignorance and insensitivity, can only contribute to the strained relationship between the two parts of our Province. Including Labrador in the name of our Province would be a change. A symbolic change, maybe, but at least a beginning. This is all Labrador wants, that is all Labrador needs, a beginning."

Now, Mr. Speaker, since 1949, surely to goodness, isn't it time for us as legislators to give Labrador a beginning? It is not too late. We should have it done it in 1964. The last paragraph of this gentleman's statement: "Let no one suffer the mistaken notion that changing the name will miraculously solve all of the serious problems faced by those of us living in Labrador. However, at the same time, let no one underestimate the power of the attachment we have to our great land or the strength and resolve with which we cling to it, to our heritage and our identity as Labradorians."

Now, the last sentence: "The repeated failure of the Newfoundland governments to appreciate and recognise this is an all too common theme in Labrador's history. For Labrador's sake and for our Province's sake we must all hope that the Provincial government will finally learn the lesson of history.

Now, that is from Wally McLean. Wally McLean is a crusader, because he took this ball and he is still running with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave! By leave!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, one second? With this ball he wants to achieve what the other 32,000 people in Labrador want to achieve, and what thousands of people on the island want to achieve, which is to have our Province called the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me say that generally government is supportive of this particular approach. I have to say to the hon. member that I regret that he always - I guess he gets carried away and can't help it. But in his speeches he tends to use so much of the time with raw politics and trying to throw some darts at some other members from Labrador and so on. I regret he uses time for that.

Nevertheless, I will have to say to him that generally the overall intent of this resolution finds favour with government. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the recognition of Labrador in terms of all government correspondence and all that kind of thing found favour in 1964 when an act was passed that did not accomplish this purpose but it accomplished another purpose. That was to make it possible to, in all official correspondence, in terms of the government of the Province, make reference to both Newfoundland and Labrador.

So that has been in existence for quite some time. Up to 1982 it was probably very difficult to change anyway. Because at that point in time you would have to go to England to get the change. And that was rather difficult. You had to go through two processes, one in Canada, one in England.

Since 1982, though, it has become a little easier to do. Because I understand that the mechanisms - and I am not absolutely certain of the mechanism myself - but I understand that the mechanisms are relatively much easier today than they were pre-1982 to bring about some kind of constitutional change. However, I want to say to members opposite that I am going to propose an amendment, and I want to explain why. There are some reasons that I think members opposite should take into account.

First of all - well, I will get to that in a few minutes. I just want go over my reasons and you can follow my reasoning. First of all, I am not absolutely certain, as Government House Leader here today, exactly what the mechanisms are that are going to be followed. I am not certain, as well, of any impacts there might be. I would like to know these things before we actually jump ahead and do something. My natural tendency is to be fairly cautious, and instead of immediately jumping into something, to look at all aspects of it somehow. I am very pleased to see that I have the support of the Leader of the Opposition in this regard.

In January of this year, as a matter of fact, he indicated that he would support officially changing the name, but he said that he would like to see the subject researched thoroughly prior to any decisions being made to see what exactly is involved. So I am glad to see that I have the support of the Leader of the Opposition in terms of a cautious approach, but support at the same time. So I am going to propose an amendment because of that.

There is another reason, as well. I am not certain, it may have no bearing at all, but in my untutored mind, I suppose, I am worried about a problem that might arise at this point in time in Canadian history when there is an awful lot going on right now this day and over the next month or so, an awful lot going on in terms of constitutional change. I am kind of leery of Newfoundland right at this moment coming up and getting into that situation with a suggested constitutional change that may or may not be interpreted or misinterpreted the right way in other parts of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No. I am being serious, now, I am not being political. I am being serious. There is a serious problem in Canada and constitutional comments sometimes cause great furor and great concern in other parts of Canada. Anything that is said or done by a province is interpreted in the light of what is going on constitutionally now.

So I am not sure about that. I am not saying that it would be a big problem, but I am not saying it would not be a big problem. I think that to be responsible and to be reasonable, you have to at least take that into account at this point in our history.

There is another problem I have, and that is that it is a big move to change the official name of the Province. I really would like to see some input from the people of the Province. If we are going to change the name, then surely heavens, it is a big move and we should give them some input into that change.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition has been going around the Province indicating -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: No.

The Leader of the Opposition has been going around the Province indicating that people should have input into fundamental decisions, and to me, that is a fundamental decision.

So, Mr. Speaker, bearing all those things in mind - and this is not an amendment made like normal amendments made in Private Member's Day sometimes to try to trick somebody or to try to change the intent, or to try to turn it to political advantage and all that kind of stuff. That is not the intent of this. The reasons I gave are real.

I am going to move, seconded by the Member for Stephenville, that the necessary deletions and additions being made to the first Be It Resolved -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Bellevue.

MR. BAKER: The Member for Bellevue.

- to make the necessary deletions and additions to have the first 'be it resolved 'read: BE IT RESOLVED that a select committee of this House be appointed to examine the implications of, and the proper mechanism for taking the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that this committee accept and examine - I did not want to make it any more restricted than that - accept and examine the views of the residents of this Province. Mr. Speaker, could you check and see if that is in order?

MR. SPEAKER: I am going to recess the House for just a couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair moves that the amendment is in order under basically two conditions, one that the amendment can be changed by deletion of certain words. What we have here is deletion of certain words, deletion of the first resolution. We are still looking at two resolutions. What we have done now is an amendment to the first resolution, the resolution which states: BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly recognize the Province as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is amended now to read that all the words after 'that' in the first resolve be eliminated. Is that correct?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) the resolution at that point in time by unanimous consent of the House read: BE IT RESOLVED that the government take the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was my understanding of it. That was what was in existence. This would add some words to that but essentially most of those same words are used in that.

MR. SPEAKER: It is substantially the same.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make some clarification to my hon. colleague. Why not leave in the 'be it resolved' portion that we agreed with at the beginning of the session this afternoon and 'be it further resolved' that a select committee of this House be appointed. Why not do it that way, and 'be it further resolved'?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Government House Leader going to make a contribution?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, my position is that the words: take the necessary constitutional steps to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is part of what I am saying. I am saying you add some words at the beginning and add some words at the end of that.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be contradictory to say that the government do that change now, and then examine the change afterwards, for the reasons that I gave. My amendment indicates that we support this idea; however, there are a number of reasons why we would prefer to go through this process, and I outlined them to the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

What we are doing is actually substituting the first resolve in the resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains. The Chair was about to say - I read the wrong resolution - but the Chair was about to say that it moves the amendment in order on two counts; one that the actual amendment itself - we are allowed to do this by deletion of certain words and adding other words; and secondly that it gives the House a better chance to give its total vote on the amendment, and hon. members will know that this is an amendment so they get a chance to vote on both aspects of the motion. They get a chance to vote on the motion as presented by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains; then they also get a chance to vote on the motion as amended.

I move the amendment in order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not intend to take my full time, but because of the reaction of members opposite I have to point out once again, and some of the members were not here to hear the reasons that I gave, and they are, I believe, very sensible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. member that his time is up because of the time that we took out for the -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. BAKER: I will just take two minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons I gave were very serious reasons, and I do believe that this is a fundamental change which we support, and no problem with that. There is a fundamental change that I believe we have to now go and get the views of the people in the Province. I think that is an important process. We have to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well it can be arranged between myself and the Opposition House Leader, because that is how the committee would be appointed. I think it is important that we do that.

I think it is important that we do not jump into this right now without looking at the other serious implications that I mentioned, okay? I think it is really important that we examine all sides of this, and I mentioned to the Opposition House Leader that this is entirely in line with the attitude of his leader, the Opposition Leader, who has stated publicly that we should examine it seriously rather than just do it flippantly - examine it seriously. It is in line with his suggestions, and the fact that there may be some implications, and we will find these out.

I seriously believe that that process has to be done before we make a fundamental change like that. I do not want to see it done in a hurried or a flippant manner, or an unconsidered manner, but we support the idea simply because it is a silly situation right now where we refer to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are the Province of Newfoundland. Well if the Province of Newfoundland already includes Labrador, then we are saying we are the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador. It does not make sense, right? So either we do one or the other. Either we drop what we have been doing since 1964 - either we drop that or we go all the way and make the second change. I believe that, but I indicate to hon. members that seriously I believe we should go through that process.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Private Member's resolution which proposes to officially change the name of this Province to the name of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of Labrador have quite often expressed the idea that there isn't a recognition from the island portion of the Province of the contribution that Labrador makes, not just economically to the coffers of the government, but the social contribution that Labrador makes, the athletic contribution that it makes.

The contributions that I am speaking of are the contributions when teams travelling from Labrador compete, that kind of contribution, or the contribution that groups such as the Carol Players have made to the whole social pattern of this Province by competing on the island portion of the Province in many, many drama festivals. I would add that it is probably the most recognized drama groups, probably the most publicly awarded group in this Province. The social contribution, the aboriginal carvings and other aspects of their culture that they have contributed.

Mr. Speaker, their contributions have not really been recognized. I suppose there is nobody who has ever lived or visited Labrador who has not been told that Labrador has not been recognized by people who sit in this Legislature or walk the streets or shopping centres on the island portion of this Province. They just don't appreciate the contribution that Labrador makes, and there is no doubt that there has been a degree of alienation developed over a number of years. I must admit that in recent years - I have only lived in Labrador for twenty-eight years - I have to say today there is more alienation in Labrador than there has ever been since I have lived there. As a member of the constitutional committee that travelled Labrador, after the committee was struck last October, we travelled there part of Christmas, I think it was, and the people represented had a very common theme and we addressed it in our report. Every part of Labrador that we visited said that there is a deepening sense of alienation developing between the island portion of the Province and the so called mainland portion of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to that end the committee recommended that the issue of the potential separation of Quebec from Canada was particularly sensitive in Labrador. Each presentation made there suggested that a separation by Quebec would necessitate a review by Labradorians of their constitutional status, and they would give serious consideration in seeking territorial or provincial status. The long-standing feelings of alienation held by many Labradorians were a constant theme of the presentations.

Mr. Speaker, that feeling of alienation has been there for hundreds of years. When people talk about the discovery of this Province of Newfoundland, they always talk about John Cabot who came here and discovered Newfoundland in 1497. Probably they don't understand that Labrador - we have always been split geographically, since the ice age, split from the island portion of the Province geographically by the Straits, Mr. Speaker, but the name Labrador got it's name I believe about three years later when the Portuguese explorer Corte Real, I believe, sailed with one of the people who also sailed with John Cabot three years previously, and he was a landholder or farmer by the name of Jorge Fernandez I think it was.

MR. WARREN: Your good on your Spanish names.

MR. A. SNOW: He was the one who influenced Corte Real to travel that route and of course they discovered Labrador. It was named after this landholder who sailed on this ship with Corte Real. He was born in the Azores, I believe. But that is how we got the name. Subsequent to the discovery, the island portion of the Province was fished mostly by the merchants from England, and of course they came over and some of them settled here and the Basques who came over, Mr. Speaker, and fished in Labrador and settled in Labrador, up in the Red Bay region.

Even then there was a feeling of difference between the people there and the people on the island portion of the Province, or the people who came from somewhere else, to take what they were taking from Labrador. Because that is how the people of Labrador feel, that alienation. That people from somewhere else have always come in and taken out, and don't put anything back. They blame the aboriginals of the day for coming in to Labrador, in the Red Bay area then. The aboriginals would come down and as written in history they would suggest that the aboriginals used to take some of the iron tools that the Europeans had, the Basques had brought over, and they referred to it as stealing. But of course, when the Basques took the whales or the caribou, there was no reference of their stealing the caribou in our history. There is no reference to that whatsoever.

So you can see right back in history this feeling of alienation was even developed then. That it was okay for the Basques to come and take whales but when the aboriginals who were sharing the resources of the land - both the Inuit and the Innu at that time - when they would take from the Basques, tools - the rope or the iron tools that they use - that was considered stealing. That was wrong. It started even then. It continues today. It continued when we had the early settlement, the livyers that went to the Labrador coast and settled there to eke a living. There was very little government, if you will, government services that was even recognised on the island portion of the Province that was given to these people. There was nothing given to the people of Labrador. The only services they would get would be the services that were delivered in the summer. Because that was when the people from the island, from Newfoundland, would be in there, taking, again, the fish, and not leaving anything back there.

The same thing occurs even today. They remove the resources - such as where I live - they take the money from the riches of the ground, the sale of the iron ore, and we are not expected to be living in western Labrador. I am as guilty as anybody else. I have lived there for twenty-eight years. When I went to western Labrador I went there with the idea of living there for maybe a year or a year and a half. To get enough money to go to university. I would say most people looked at Labrador that way then, and unfortunately most Newfoundlanders still look at Labrador as that. As a place to go, make some money quickly, get out, come back home to Newfoundland.

That same thing occurs today, whether it was going in to take the fish off the coast, or the iron ore out of western Labrador, or to work in construction on Churchill Falls. It was to go in, stay for a short period, take it, take whatever you can get, and take your money back to the island, to Newfoundland, not Labrador. You take it back to Newfoundland and that is the way we - and I say "we," we as a people - have developed, or not developed. Whichever way you want to refer to it as - This Province. Now, there has to be a recognition, first of all, of this deepening alienation and how we are going to cure it, and part of this process is, first, recognizing that there is a problem.

The hon. minister, the President of Treasury Board, said that he supports the intent of it. Well, this is not going to cure this alienation, Mr. Speaker. He not only has to support the intent of this Private Member's resolution, we have to remove all the things that cause this deepening feeling of alienation that is settling in Labrador. And the only way to do that is, we have to recognize the contribution and we have to treat Labradorians as equals.

We, as Labradorians are not owned by Newfoundland, we are not; we are part of this Province. As a land mass, we are three times the size of the Island portion of the Province - about three times the size of it. A per capita contribution to the GDP, we contribute more, about three times as much as the Island residents of this Province. So we are not owned by - we are stolen from, a lot of people feel. But we don't get treated fairly, and that is what has to be addressed. It is not just the name change, but it is part of it; it is important, because by continuously saying Newfoundland and Labrador, it reinforces the idea, and there are other things that this government and previous governments should do and should have done.

One of the other things, Mr. Speaker, is that Labrador has its own flag, as Newfoundland does, and that flag should be flown on provincial government buildings, that is another recognition that people of Labrador want.

MR. WARREN: Very simple.

MR. A. SNOW: We are proud of our flag in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it flies at the Town Hall in Labrador City, it flies at the Town Hall in Wabush, it flies in Nain, it flies in Southern Labrador, I am sure, it flies in practically every community at their town halls, but it doesn't fly over provincial buildings.

Mr. Speaker, some people on the other side are even muttering now that it is separatism. It isn't, Mr. Speaker, it is a recognition of who we are in Labrador and that we want to participate in this Province, but we want a recognition from the rest of this Province that we are part of this Province, and the only way to do that is to start recognizing things such as changing the name, recognizing the flag and, Mr. Speaker, there is another one, it is the map.

The geographic land mass of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, as I suggested, is about three times the size of the Island portion of this Province, yet, if you look at the official map of this Province, you will see Labrador stuck up in a corner somewhere about half the size of the Island and you will be amazed at the number of people in this Province who have completed high school, and are working for the provincial government, and think that Labrador is just a little bit larger than the Avalon Peninsula. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. We reinforce, through official publications such as the map that Labrador is only about half the size or a quarter of the size of the Island portion of the Province, so why would you think that is correct? And yet we continue to do it.

Another thing we should be doing is we should change that map, publish a map realistically. Would Newfoundlanders be offended if Canada published a map without the Island of Newfoundland on it? You are darned right they would be offended, and this House would probably be called into an emergency session. There would probably even be people returning from Europe if there were a map put out tomorrow; people would be coming back from Europe saying: Boy, we have to tell those people in Ottawa that Newfoundland is part of this country, but yet it is okay for Labrador to be stuck up in a corner and be recognized as just a little piece of land stuck up there about half the size of the Island portion of the Province. Again, that is another thing that has to be done, Mr. Speaker.

Is that going to change really the way of life in Labrador, if we change the name, we change the map, we change the flags or we have a ruling on the flags? No, Mr. Speaker, more importantly than all those things, is that, there has to be a change in the attitude of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

MR. WARREN: Both governments.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, somebody from the other side suggested it is the federal government. Now, I have attempted to try to keep this on a level field. Some people may want to bring that down lower than the high part of the road, but I do not, Mr. Speaker. The government of the day have to recognize that other things have to be addressed. There is no reason in the world, when we have a highway in Labrador, why people in Labrador should have to wait to see when the snow is going to be removed from it to connect communities, Mr. Speaker. That is our Trans-Canada Highway. There is absolutely no reason. I mean, Gander people don't have to wait until the Budget comes down, or wait for some negotiations with some private company or some Crown corporation to see if the snow is going to be removed next year, to see if they are going to be able to drive from Grand Falls to Gander. They don't have to wait for that, yet the people in Labrador are expected, that - just because there is a road there it doesn't mean it is going to be open year-round. That attitude has to change. If the road is built it should be maintained. It is an accepted fact. But in Labrador some people think, this administration thought, we do not know if we are going to be doing it. That is wrong. There was never, ever a discussion on the Island portion of the Province, Newfoundland, to decide whether or not they were going to see if they could get somebody else to plow the road between Gander and Grand Falls. When the bridge wasn't even completed there, Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal administration, they used to have a ferry there to go back and forth all the time. But this one says, Well, there is a bridge not completed and even when it is completed we don't know what we are going to do, whether the road is going to be open year-round. That attitude has to change. And that is what is going to be more important, when the attitudes of people living in Newfoundland change to give Labrador the respect it has earned and deserved. Over the last hundreds of years it has contributed to the economy of this Province, to the whole Province. It has to be changed in treating the people of Labrador equal and giving them equality in name, the right to fly a flag, and also giving them a return on the taxes they pay in the sense of what a government has to do is deliver services to its people who pay taxes. Recognizing that the people of Labrador contribute more per capita than Newfoundlanders do, that is when we will be truly a part of this Province. I certainly hope that this House supports it. I hope that people such as Wally McLean and Doris Saunders who have lead this debate and prompted discussion about it, and who want to see this problem addressed and the other problems I have just touched on very briefly in twenty minutes - they want to see those problems addressed. All the other Labradorians out there want to see this House, this government, future governments, and people in the streets of the Newfoundland portion of the Province recognize the contribution Labradorians have made to this whole Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and participate in this particular debate. I am very pleased to rise and support the resolution and the amendment put forward by the Government House Leader. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons, but the primary reason I am pleased here today is to see that the traditions of the great Liberal Party are extended again to Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, in his opening statement, talked about the private member's resolution that was put up there some time in March, 1964. He talked about how that particular resolution didn't get the agreement of the day. Well, Mr. Speaker, for the record, actions speak louder than words. On June 10, 1964, the House of Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of this Province proclaimed an Act called 'The Labrador Act,' Mr. Speaker. That was the action of the hon. Joey Smallwood and the Liberal Government of the day. That was the action of a government that reached out to Labrador and exercised the options and the authority of the House of Assembly to its fullest. That Act, Mr. Speaker, through the House of Assembly, recognized, in any reference whatsoever that the government of the day made to the Province of Newfoundland that Labrador had to be included; the same reference in the Coat of Arms and in every other aspect of government and every other way that the House of Assembly and the government of the day could speak about the Province it had to, by law, include Labrador as a part of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that the hon. member opposite would like to skew in his favour. Let there be no confusion, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that whatever authority the House of Assembly ever had was proclaimed in the 1964 Labrador Act. That is the record and that is the record of the Liberal Party to date.

Now, I suppose we could also look to see what the record of the other party has been to date in this hon. House of Assembly. Before I get into that, though, I would like to acknowledge the contribution that was made today by the Government House Leader and thank him most sincerely for the support that this government has provided, Mr. Speaker, to see that this issue is finally put to rest.

I thought it was also coincidental and very, very nice to have another historic ruling, another historic announcement today, on behalf of this government for the people of Labrador, and a recognition by this government that the people of Labrador should not go incurring extra hydro cost at the behest of the rest of the Province. We have seen today another example of how this Liberal Government has reached out to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but particularly the people from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain who would have seen a 10 per cent increase in their hydro bills. Now they can know that once again this government has delivered to them, that it has said to them, 'You won't have to undergo this kind of an increase.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: But you know, it is also passing strange that you have the hon. the Member for Menihek speak about how they want to play the high road, how they want over there not to get into the politics of what has happened in this Province. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. members of this House why such a statement was made a few minutes ago. It is because they are ashamed of their record when it comes to how that government and how the present federal government have treated Labrador. That is the reason why there was no mention of the federal government today. That was the reason there was no mention of the aspects of legislation and what kinds of moves can be made, because the fact remains that everybody in Labrador, particularly the people on the opposite side, when they get up and say that no, this action taken today, and certainly the constitutional amendment, will not solve all of the problems of Labrador. Nobody doubts that, but what are the suggestions for solving the problems? What are the ideas for solving the problems? What are the initiatives for solving the problems?

Nothing bothers me more than when I hear that sanctimonious attitude expressed, 'We are not going to play politics; we are not going to acknowledge the role of the federal government,' who, by the way, have unequivocal control and jurisdiction over the fishery, which everybody from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain, some thirty communities, depend on totally. We are not going to acknowledge that the federal government has recognized and certainly contributed in a significant way to the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway, but it doesn't do so in Labrador.

I can't help pointing out, when there was time for something to be done for Labrador in transportation, for example, when there was time for the government of the day in June of 1988 to sign that infamous Roads for Rails deal, when it was time to demonstrate to the people of Labrador that 'You are going to be given the funds and given the plan to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway', when it was time to give us our appropriate share of that $800 million, where was the commitment? Where was the commitment of the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, who was in the Cabinet then for some six months? Well, I guess the commitment is obviously in the results of that particular agreement.

Now then, in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador - in an area like Labrador where we do not have any roads connecting any of the communities from Red Bay to Nain, or connecting the roads from Goose Bay to the Coast, or connecting the roads from Goose Bay to Churchill Falls, when we don't have that kind of transportation system, surely the people of this Province look towards that $800 million, fifteen-year agreement as an opportunity to finally put in place the funding mechanism to see that road completed. But the people of Labrador were told in no uncertain terms exactly how they felt about it, exactly how the previous minister from Labrador felt about it when we had, what was it, $200 million? Two hundred million dollars I suppose was dedicated to the Trans-Labrador Highway? No. Was it $100 million? Surely it was one-eighth of it. Surely, Mr. Speaker, with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Labrador making up 33 per cent more in land mass than the island part of the Province, surely when the people of Labrador have 10 per cent of the population, surely got one-eighth of it, surely we got $100 million?

No. Well, I guess you would have to go down and expect a modicum of significance to this particular agreement. Surely there would have to be at least $50 million. Fifty million would be an appropriate allocation I am sure under the Rails-for-Road deal to try and impact upon the transportation needs of Labrador. But no, that minister for Labrador stood in this House and saw his Minister of Transport sign a deal that cast in stone for fifteen years where Labrador got less than 2 per cent of the funding. They got $9 million over fifteen years, out of $800 million. That is what we got. That was the record that people have to recognise, that now we go back to the hon. John Crosbie, the minister now for Newfoundland.

I am sure the Member for Torngat Mountains was up talking to them a few weeks ago. I am sure he went up there and said: please forgive me, now I want to withdraw my support for this agreement. Make sure, he says, that you send out the signal to Labrador that it is time that we got our justice in the Rails-for-Roads deal. But no, absolutely not. No more. Mr. Crosbie is saying: no way, that agreement will not be re-opened. Regardless of what the hon. member opposite says. Because he knows that that is the real attitude for the people over opposite.

When the fishery of the coast is so important, and again the hon. members must acknowledge, it is not politics when I say that the complete jurisdiction for the fishery is at the federal level. That is not partisanship. That is what government exists, that is the structure of the government today. We cannot change that. But surely there was a time when we could change it. A few years ago the previous government brought in the Resource Short Plant Program so they could assist plants throughout Newfoundland and Labrador so that any place that had a failure in the inshore fishery or certainly there was not enough to extend the season to a reasonable limit, then the Resource Short Plant Programme was introduced to supplement the season, extend the season.

When it came time to stand up for Labrador, when it came time to look out for the Nain, the Makkovik, the Cartwright, the Black Tickle, the Mary's Harbour, the L'Anse-au-Loup, the L'Anse-au-Clair, when it came time to nail down some twenty-one communities in that Resource Short Plant Programme, not one plant in Labrador was designated under that program. That is the kind of record that we have seen from the hon. members opposite.

We have seen a Saltfish Corporation operate in this Province for the last twenty-two years. We have seen the Labrador part of the Saltfish Corporation now be the only designated role in Newfoundland and Labrador. But what do we see now? A complete board of directors that is governing that Saltfish Corporation without one member from Labrador. Yet 95 per cent of its clients are in Labrador.

When we look for support for these types of initiatives there is a deafening silence from the hon. members from Labrador, and indeed the hon. Opposition Leader and the members of his caucus.

So we are obviously taking forward this initiative in the light that we have always taken Labrador. Taken it in a very serious manner. We have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to dealing with the affairs of Labrador. There is no doubt that there are other areas where the Labrador people could have gotten tremendous benefit from the previous government, and certainly today from the hon. John Crosbie.

When we talk about the northern cod stocks or any of the adjacent offshore stocks to Labrador, whether it be red fish or turbot or northern cod or the flatfish, when we look at what has been done to see that the economies of coastal Labrador are furthered, then we have to acknowledge again complete federal jurisdiction and zero - zero, Mr. Speaker - when it comes to giving our people a chance to be able to further their economies; to be able to give the fishermen of Labrador a chance to be able to supplement their income from a depleted inshore fishery. We have seen their access to northern cod denied, denied, denied, and all we have seen from the opposite side is silence, silence, silence. That has not gone unnoticed. That has not gone unnoticed in Labrador, and that is why, I guess, they will see the message come through again in the election forthcoming, or by-election before that in Labrador, of exactly where this government has put its money, where we have made our commitments, and indeed why we have gotten such approval from the people of Labrador.

When we look at the shrimp fishery on the coast of Labrador we have seen seventeen shrimp licences issued, and three of them have been dedicated to Labrador. Three of them have been given to the people of Labrador although they are totally dependent upon the fishery, directly adjacent to the fishery, and certainly could reap a tremendous amount of benefits. But when we have seen the actions of the members opposite we certainly cannot help but notice that all we get is absolute neglect, absolute silence, when it comes to getting our issues put on the table in Ottawa.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem standing here today as a member of this government following up from the acting Premier today and saying, in no uncertain terms, that we are seeing the Liberal party of the day follow in the great traditions of the Liberal party of yesterday - the Liberal party of the Smallwood's and the Roberts' - other notable members that those members opposite get so paranoid over. Those members opposite get so alarmed when they see such people of credibility and stature enter into the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They recoil; they go down in fear.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are frightened to death.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They go down in fear.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) backing up his letter, boy. Don't be talking such foolishness.

MR. DUMARESQUE: And they get people withdrawing their letters. We get people scurrying everywhere. Don't go Garfield; don't go Jim; don't go Charlie; don't go anybody over there, because if we do then we are going to suffer the embarrassment again of having Ed Roberts come here! That is the kind of strategy. They are scared of the record of the Smallwood and the Roberts' and the other members, and now today the record of this government under Premier Wells. Those are the kinds of actions that we have seen from the members opposite.

So there will be no confusion when it comes to the issue of whether we support changing the name. I might also use this opportunity, as I said I would originally, to point out to the Member for Torngat Mountains that the Political Science 101, I suppose you could call it, when it comes to what actually exists in the Legislature today and what he was trying to do. I suppose he might not admit it, but I suppose he could acknowledge the reason that the amendment is there today as it is is because I had gone over and told him how he had been folly in his first resolution, and how it would not meet his objective, which I understood. I understood his objective.

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain what 'folly' means now.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How it would certainly embarrass him to know that even if we had passed the resolution as it was originally worded, it would have accomplished nothing more than presently exists, and there is nobody who would dispute that. The Labrador Act is there, the specific mentions. All the powers of the Legislature were exercised. The complete authority that the Legislature at the time was there, so that there be no doubt about where we are coming from and what has happened, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains now, when he gets up to conclude, will use this opportunity to repent. I am sure that he will get up and say to the people of Labrador: I am sorry for signing the Roads-for Rails deal, I am sorry I sold you out on the Roads-for-Rails deal, I am sorry that I have not gone to John Crosbie and asked for one director from Labrador on the board of directors for the Saltfish Corporation. He will use this I am sure to get up and say: I am deeply sorry that I do not want to have access to the northern cod.

I am sure that he will do that today and retain the honour that I know he wants to go out with as he exits from this House in the not-too-distant future. I believe the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains has been a very meaningful force for the people of Labrador. I am sure that he will not let them down today to correct the errors of his last ten years and acknowledge that there has to be a better day, but there have to be some actions forthcoming from his brothers and sisters in Ottawa.

I am sure that he will call upon them loud and clear, he will leave no doubt in the minds of Labradorians, that today he stood and challenged John Crosbie, that he stood and challenged the minister, Jean Corbeil, for a Roads-for-Rails deal replacement. I am sure he will get up and challenge them to put it forward. I know our Minister of Transportation has been working tirelessly to see that done. I am sure that maybe he does not think that the Torngat Mountains member will get up and say that, but I don't think he should ever be underestimated in that way. His commitment to Labrador is real. I know that he was only in cabinet for five or six months at the time he signed the Roads-for-Rails deal. But certainly I am sure that now that he has gone through that experience he will repent, he will say he is sorry, he will ask for the forgiveness of Labradorians on the errors of his ways.

So in conclusion I would just say that I certainly wholeheartedly support having this change as I have advocated in every public way previous to this. I would be pleased if I am asked to serve on the committee to see that the proper constitutional mechanism is found, and I would be pleased to go throughout this Province and say yes, that we have nothing to be ashamed of over there when it comes to dealing with Labrador on a fair and balanced basis, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased today to take part in the debate on this resolution. The debate I must say off the top was going along very well, it was a good debate, intellectual debate. Both members from Labrador on this side did a good job, the Government House Leader. Then, up gets the Member for Eagle River and in usual fashion he entered into a tirade, he turned pale in the face again. All his blood went up in his head and he lost his cool. He even went - the only one over there, I must say to the member, to public - I mean, the same member who by the way was mumbling to the media in the corridors of Confederation Building when the Premier announced that Mr. Roberts was going to become Minister of Justice, the same member who said: now don't mention my name, was this member. Don't mention my name.

How embarrassed he was on the NTV program the day I went up for the taping and he was there and Lynn Burry said to him: But Mr. Dumaresque, you know that there were members of your caucus who did not want to be named. Poor old Danny was so embarrassed because he knew she was talking about him. He almost fell off the set, I want to say to him. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, the people who are most concerned about Ed Roberts winning a seat and coming into the Legislature are those on that side? They are so intimidated by it that if most of them were to tell the truth they don't want him in here.

Having said that, the member has made some very good remarks about the Member for Torngat Mountains. So he should. Because he has been a good member for Labrador. He has done a lot of good things for Labrador, and that is why he has brought forward this private member's resolution today. Because he is sincerely concerned about Labrador and his record of service to the people of Labrador I think cannot be questioned. I want to say to the Member for Eagle River that I - no, I cannot hope that - because I was going to say, if only he could get five or six months in the cabinet, I was going to say to him, how pleased he would be if he could only get in. But he is not going to get in there.

MR. WARREN: Doris Saunders (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Doris Saunders is going to be his campaign manager in the next election. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important resolution. I want to go on record as supporting it. I am very pleased that the Government House Leader has seen fit to bring forward an amendment which we accept, calling upon a select committee of the House to be struck, to be appointed and I have already discussed it privately with the Government House Leader and I wanted that to be done quickly, because it is one thing to stand here and say yes and make an amendment and agree to establish a select committee of the House but it needs to be done soon. You cannot go waiting until the fall to do this. We need it done now and I want to again say to the Member for Eagle River, that he talked about how proud he would be to serve on that committee; well, I have bad news for the Member for Eagle River.

There are going to be two representatives on the committee for Labrador and he is not included, I say to him.

But no, Mr. Speaker, on a serious note, I do support and I hope that the Government House Leader and I will very soon discuss the select committee, decide upon numbers and then who will be included in the make-up of the committee because I think it is important we get on with it for all good reasons, so I want to go on record -

MR. WINSOR: The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island wants to Chair it, he says.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island would like to Chair it. Now I do not know why that would be, but all I can say to him is that if the Government House Leader asks me for a recommendation, then I will remember that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island wanted to be chairman of the committee but I think it would be most fitting I say to the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island that it would be one of the Labrador members who would Chair the committee -

AN HON. MEMBER: You had better have a neutral member (inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: - have a neutral member. Now, why would the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island not think that someone from Labrador would be just as neutral on this issue as a member from the Island portion of the Province? What is the logic -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I mean, it is unbelievable, but I am not surprised by the hon. member's logic again, because I have had trouble following him the three years he has been here. It has been a great difficulty -

MR. TOBIN: That is unparliamentary, that word, anyway.

MR. MATTHEWS: What is that?

MR. TOBIN: What he is saying.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, no. Neutral he said. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is wrong with the hon. member again today. If only he would speak out on behalf of his constituents like he sits in his seat and speaks here, then he might be recognized on some of the polls that are done in the city. He might be recognized, they might know who their member is but they do not know who he is. Who, who they say? Never heard of him. Some of them think Mr. Justice Barry is still the member there, that is how bad it is.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we do support the resolution and I want to go on record and say that I have enjoyed the debate today on this resolution and I will conclude my remarks because I understand that there are one or two other members who want to make a few comments as well.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Member for Grand Bank for giving me an opportunity to have a couple of minutes of the House's time.

I would just like to say that I support the resolution and am happy to see -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - happy to see that they are going to deal with this question of clarifying the name of the Province, which I think should certainly be done and be done very soon; and what more appropriate time to deal with it than now when we are dealing with the constitutional changes in the country and perhaps we can ensure that this becomes part of any constitutional package that is put together this year.

Just to add a little different perspective to the debate here today, I would like to read a little from a letter from a constituent of mine, who sent along to me last August, Mr. Keith Davis, who is very interested in Labrador affairs and I think he has an interesting perspective on what we should do with this question.

He wrote at the time of the Viking's visit to the Province last summer and he said: This is truly an historic occasion as the descendants of the Vikings, sailing in a replica of the Viking ship, visit the remains of the colony that their ancestors founded nearly a millennium ago. The changing of the Province's name from that of Newfoundland and Labrador to Vinland, is a good way to mark this occasion. In fact, this is the first time in our history that we have had one name applied to both the Island of Newfoundland and to Labrador.

Using the name of Newfoundland to designate the entire Province is not satisfactory. Many Labradorians do not like to be called Newfoundlanders, so it has been suggested from time to time that a new name be adopted for the entire Province. Vinland would be a good choice, although the Vikings called Labrador, Markland. The only other name that I know of which incorporated both the Island and Labrador is Estotiland, which was applied at various times to the Island of Newfoundland and to the Labrador Peninsula.

Estotiland, is probably an alteration of Escotiland, Land of the Scots, named after the Celts who preceded the Vikings to North America. With so much talk about Labrador's separation perhaps it is time to adopt a name which would unite the entire Province.

I would like to see Mr. Davis' remarks paid attention to by the select committee which we are proposing to set up. I think we should look at the possibility of coming up with one name for the whole Province that may be separate from the two separate names that we have now. I have thought about a name such as 'Atlantica'. Atlantica could be Newfoundland and Labrador. We would have the island of Newfoundland and we would have the Labrador portion, but we would not have the kind of convoluted name that Newfoundland and Labrador is.

So I hope that is an angle that people will pay some attention to as the committee begins making its rounds. I hope the committee is appointed quickly, because I do see a possibility of having this amendment accepted during the current process of constitutional amendment. If we do not have it done at this time it might be a long time before we are able to have it done. So I hope the committee is appointed soon and gets on quickly with its work.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Member for Torngat Mountains is going to give me a few minutes of his time, which starts in a minute's time, to make a few remarks on this important resolution. I thank the Member for Torngat Mountains for allowing me to do that. I also congratulate the Member for Torngat Mountains for bringing this resolution forward at this time.

I think it is more than a gesture. It is an important symbolic moment in our history when we choose to examine the very name by which our constitutional entity is to call itself. I am a bit disappointed I guess that certain members have taken the opportunity to throw their usual rhetorical brickbats around the House rather than deal with the substance of the issue.

We have been as a province derelict in our responsibility to the people of Labrador. We have on a number of occasions in our thinking seen Labrador as a resource base for the island portion of the Province and not recognised the great value and contribution that the people of Labrador have made. A more genuine desire, which I share, to have the whole of Labrador be considered as an integral part of the Province where we in this part of the Province recognise the contribution, the value, of the people of Labrador. Whether they be so-called livyers, whether they be native people or of native ancestry, or people who have recently moved to Labrador to participate in the resource extraction of Labrador City and Wabush, or the military enterprises in Goose Bay or the activities which have brought them there for business or other work.

Changing the name of the Province through constitutional means is an appropriate way of doing that. It is also appropriate that we avoid what the constitution committee itself heard on its hearings in Labrador from almost every person who came to the constitution committee to speak. They spoke of Labrador alienation. If we are going to resolve the issue of Labrador alienation we must do it by embracing....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: We must do it by embracing, Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador and that part of our Province into our very constitutional reality and constitutional name. So I do support the resolution. I am not certain that I support the idea of spending a great deal of money going around the Province hearing the various details. I know that the Member for Pleasantville may want to toy with various names that might be used in the Province. I think that this widespread acceptance of the notion of changing the name -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This place, again, has become a little too disorderly. The Member for St. John's East is not saying anything about it, but I feel it is my duty to intervene because I am finding it difficult to hear. I should not have to try to strain myself to hear what an hon. member is saying.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, have indicated that they support the change in the name, and I hope that they will do so by supporting the main resolution rather than setting out to travel around the Province to have a committee to hear various other alternatives such as the Member for Pleasantville has put forth. There is wide acceptance of it. Mr. Speaker, members on the other side have said so. We on this side have said so, and we support the change (inaudible) we should set about to do it now and not bother wasting money to travel around the Province and hear views on something that I think there is already consensus on.

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

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

In my closing remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would think it is only appropriate that I would clarify for the record once and for all the misrepresentation that was given by the Member for Eagle River. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River - and Hansard will report it tomorrow - that it has already been done by the Liberal Party back in June 1964. Let me tell you. To get the record straight what the Liberal Party did in June 1964 was debate in the House on May 14, 1964 that on Bill 51 which reads 'An Act Respecting The Recognition of the Part of the Province of Newfoundland Located on the Mainland of Canada known as Labrador,' brought in by the Late J.R. Smallwood. That was what was brought in, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want the members to realize that. Let's get the record straight. That was May 14, but that was not strong enough, but on May 28, the Leader of the Opposition, J. Greene, brought in the resolution that government should take the necessary constitutional step to change the name of the Province of Newfoundland to that of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Liberal Party in 1964 voted against twenty-four to four. Twenty-four to four, Mr. Speaker! They voted against it in 1964, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. House Leader is showing me the same thing I have here. This is Bill 51, which is not what they defeated in 1964, it is what we are asking for today.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Eagle River has made many good speeches in this Legislature. In fact, I have congratulated him on many of his good speeches, but here is one very sensitive issue, a very, very important issue, and he spent seventeen minutes of his twenty minutes attacking me as a member. Now, I don't know where the future lies with the Member for Eagle River. I have no idea how long the member will be a member of this Legislature, but I will say one thing to him, and that is, try to do the best for the people of Labrador. Don't condemn them, and for the love of God, don't write saucy letters to the people in Labrador such as you wrote to Doris Saunders. For jumpin's sake, Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. gentleman, don't embarrass and don't degrade a person who won the Order of Canada by writing a letter to her and telling her that she doesn't have any more sense than a grade six student. You are shameful. It is shameful that the hon. member would stoop so low and write such a letter to Mrs. Saunders, who won the Order of Canada. That is the kind of member who said he is standing up for the Labrador people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I will read for the record what he said: '"Them Days" never got more than $20,000 from any previous government, while our government raised it to $40,000. If this is not a 100 per cent increase, you should consult any grade six student.'

'Finally, I find it ironic that a person who had nothing good to say about the late Joseph Smallwood would be demanding to be totally supported by the government forever.' These are the kinds of comments that he writes to a woman who received the Order of Canada. I am only in this Legislature twelve years plus, but I say to my hon. colleague, when you have been another ten or twelve years in this Legislature and speak on behalf of the Labrador people as much as I have spoken for them, Mr. Speaker -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

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

Hon. members ought to know the rules and procedures for debate. They do not permit hon. members to shout at top level decibels across the House. There is a procedure for it, and I ask hon. members to abide by the procedure unless, of course, they want to lower the decorum such that the people of the Province will want us all out of here.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I should say to the Member for Eagle River that I never once interrupted when he was making a speech, and I would hope that he would give me the same courtesy.

However I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when a Labrador member insults a person of the calibre of Doris Saunders, a woman who won the Order of Canada for her contribution to Labrador, it is shameful! It is shameful that a person would do such a thing! Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous! It is downright degrading for a member. You are shameful!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just came in and I have not been following the relation of the debate. Hon. members know they have to be relevant. We are now debating the changing of a name, and unless the Chair is unaware of the continuity and the fluidity of the debate, I don't see the connection between what is now going on and the changing of the name of Labrador. So I say to the hon. member that he ought to know the rules of relevancy, and to keep his remarks to the debate.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has cast a lot of aspersions on what I do and promote in this House. I will never have it said, Mr. Speaker, that I stamp my feet on the Labrador flag, nor will I ever have it said, Mr. Speaker, that I sold out Labrador for the fifteen-year deal on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously no point of order, but the hon. member has taken what was a very serious debate and a good debate and he has brought it down to levels that we wish debates did not get down to in this Legislature. If he made those remarks about that distinguished Labradorian, Doris Saunders, then I think he should stand in his place and apologize to her and to Labrador. You talk about alienation towards Labrador, Mr. Speaker, when you have one of their own members representing the people making such comments about such a distinguished Labradorian. I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The Opposition House Leader should know better. The debate today is on the changing of the name of Labrador. It is a very serious issue, and whether or not a particular letter was written to a particular resident and what was said in it has no relevance, no bearing on it. The Opposition House Leader is now trying to defend the indefensible by saying that it is a proper thing to do. He is saying it is the proper thing to do for the member to get up and read private correspondence on something that has nothing to do with this issue. He is trying to defend the indefensible. He should know better. He has been around long enough now to know better than that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Chair has reminded the hon. member of the requirement for relevance in debate and I ask the hon. member to abide by that rule, please.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: No wonder, Mr. Speaker, the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not about to tolerate any disrespect or disregard for its ruling. The Chair has indicated clearly to members what it wants and the Chair is going to have it, either that, or it is going to call upon the House to do what it is supposed to do.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I want to continue with my resolution, but I see now why the Premier said the hon. Member for Eagle River was too immature to go into Cabinet. I can understand it, Mr. Speaker.

When I started this resolution some weeks ago, I decided to contact a number of communities in Labrador, and it is interesting; I want to read down through the list of the support I got from Labrador: Rigolet, Postville, Mary's Harbour, Cartwright, Hopedale, Nain, L'Anse-au-Clair, L'Anse-a-Loup, St. Lewis, Red Bay, who also sent me a map which is very interesting, Wabush, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and Northwest River, Mr. Speaker. All those towns sent back to me copies of support of the resolution - there are two parts to the resolution, which we will be dealing with later.

The hon. the House Leader when he brought in his amendment wanted to have a select committee to go around the Province and see how the Province feels about this particular name change. I have a correspondence of support from Burin, Springdale, Bonavista, Port aux Basques, Carbonear, Clarenville, Gander, and Mount Pearl. So you can see there is wide support from councils around this Province.

It is interesting. You know, I have to go back to my hon. colleague from Eagle River when he said, 'the great Liberal party did it', and he was talking about the resolution of Bill 51, the Labrador Act. Here is what the late Mr. Smallwood said when he brought in this particular bill, and I want to read this because this was very important and this is what is upsetting today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you a Liberal then?

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague from Port de Grave, what I am doing today I am doing on behalf of the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Here is what the late J. R. Smallwood said: Today, Labrador as I have described it, is very often in the public, this northeast corner of this continent. It is the last great storehouse of undeveloped natural wealth left on the continent. In one watershed there are 9 million horsepowers of electricity, stands of pulpwood timber, probably 70 or 80 million cords beginning only not to find, to discover and find there is a vast iron field - vast iron field - $5,000; $6,000; $10,000 millions worth. That is how much Labrador is worth.

Now you can see, Mr. Speaker, at that time the only ambition for the late J. R. Smallwood to bring this bill forward was for the wealth in Labrador, and why didn't the hon. member have the guts to get up and say it? And that is why he brought in that particular Bill 51 that day, because the Labrador people in 1964 were getting upset because the government, the Liberal government, was taking everything out of Labrador and putting nothing back, and that was the problem, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: That is the problem, and it is disgusting that that hon. member would still believe in that philosophy!

Mr. Speaker, my time has expired and I agree -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleagues opposite that Labrador - that great piece of property called Labrador is very valuable to the Province of Newfoundland - very valuable. Newfoundland is very valuable to Labrador also. The Labrador people do not want to leave Newfoundland, but Newfoundland - the Government of Newfoundland - is trying to do everything they can to push Labrador to one side and take out what they can get, and, Mr. Speaker, this is nothing uncommon for this government, this is going on since 1949, I said it before, and, Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed to stand up and be counted -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be.

MR. TOBIN: You apologize to Doris Saunders, that's what you do.

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. House Leader would like to have a select committee, if that is the desire and the wishes, fine. I want to say this in closing; I heard one of my colleagues saying: why don't you resign if you don't get this through? Mr. Speaker, that was a very difficult challenge. That was a most difficult challenge, because I say to every member in this House, that this resolution means so much to me, because I guess for the last twenty-seven, twenty-eight years I have been associated with Labrador and if it means that this government would stoop so low as to force me to resign to get this resolution through, I will do it, because it is that important. And I will tell you this much, I only wish other members would have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and show if they are working on behalf of their constituents, because I tell you this much, and I say this and Mr. Rex Renouf said it, he said it twenty-seven years ago. He said if we do not do it today, twenty-seven or twenty-eight years from now we will be talking about it again, so let us move forward today. Let us go from this day forward-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up, we have to take the vote.

MR. WARREN: - and let us take the necessary steps to have this resolution taken now from this House immediately, as soon as we can and do the first step that needs to be done to get the Province called the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

All those against, 'nay'. Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member stood for division and division the Chair must call even though there were no nays, the Chair must call for division and sufficient numbers called.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. Place the bar please.

All those in favour of the amendment, please rise.

MR. NOEL (CLERK): The hon. the President of the Council, the hon. the Minister of Development, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Barrett, Mr. K. Aylward, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, Mr. Reid, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Crane, Mr. Penney, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Noel, Mr. Efford, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Short, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Small, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Tobin, Mr. R. Aylward, Mr. Hearn, Ms. Verge, Mr. Woodford, Mr. N. Windsor, Mr. S. Winsor, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Warren, Mr. Hewlett.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment, please rise.

MR. NOEL (CLERK): Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those for the motion as amended, please say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, please say nay. Carried.

This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday at 2:00 p.m.