November 8, 1995          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLII  No. 52


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Before we begin the routine proceedings for today I would like to welcome to the galleries eleven students from Central Newfoundland Regional College, along with their instructor Arnot Coish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: A multiplicity of benefits.

Mr. Speaker, on July 2, 1991, a Piper Cherokee Cruiser from the Aviation Career Academy crashed in a wooded area near Terra Nova in this Province. The pilot, Craig David Adey, and his three passengers, Carl Robert Allwood, Kelly Ann Cleary and Mary Jean Lewis, all died in the air crash.

The hon. William Baker, a Judge of the Provincial Court, was appointed to carry out an inquiry under the provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act. Judge Baker heard evidence over a four week period in August and November of 1993, and submitted his report to me recently. I now table the report.

Judge Baker made the following findings which are set out in his report. These include:

There is no evidence that David Craig Adey was an incompetent pilot... based on the evidence Judge Baker concluded, and this is a quotation, Sir, "I would classify him as a novice pilot at the time of the accident."

Secondly, given the weather information available to the pilot at the time of departure from Gander, the flight was permissible under the Aviation Regulations covering visual flight rules.

Next, the aircraft was in good mechanical condition. Due to the marginal visibility to ground references the pilot was relying primarily, if not entirely, on radio navigation (VOR) for directions during the flight.

Next, the pilot encountered severe storm conditions with electrical activity, high winds and zero ceiling shortly after take off. These conditions were present at the crash location.

Finally, Judge Baker concluded that: and these are quotations, sir, "(i) pilot actions associated with this flight and, (ii) severe weather conditions, combined with the inexperience of the pilot were probably the immediate causes of this crash."

Judge Baker made no recommendations in the report which might prevent similar deaths. He did, however, accept the opinion of Dr. Charles Hutton, at that time the provinces Chief Forensic Pathologist. One or more of the rear seat passengers might have survived had the aircraft been fitted with, and the passengers wearing, properly attached shoulder harnesses and lap belts. Recommendations on the use of such shoulder harnesses and belts have been made following the investigation of many similar air crashes. Such recommendations have been made to the aircraft industry and to the Canadian authorities responsible for aviation safety.

As members know, Mr. Speaker, authority for regulations of aviation rests with the Federal Government. I have written my colleague, the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, to ask him to consider these recommendations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as is our practice, a copy of this support was provided several days ago to the parties of the enquiry so that they can deal with it in advance of it being made public, as I now do so, Sir.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of the statement previous to coming in the House. One of the glaring conclusions, the second one, was that severe weather conditions combined with the inexperience of the pilot were probably the immediate cause of this crash. The minister also said that he has brought these concerns about the shoulder harnesses and the lap belts to the federal minister; I think it is Mr. Young.

One of the things that is happening, and the minister should be aware of, and if he is not then the Minister of Transportation should certainly be aware of what is happening with the privatization of airports in Canada today and the recommendation from the federal government that there be one airport. St. John's airport would be the only so-called weather station for aircraft in this Province. This is a prime example when you have a small aircraft leaving Gander, just a few miles out in Terra Nova, based on visual. That is all he was going on really, and what can happen. We can have four seasons in three or four hours in this Province and the federal government should not be allowed to implement such a program in this Province.

I ask the ministers and members opposite to make that recommendation to Ottawa, along with the recommendation that the minister has in his statement. It is very, very, important and this is evident of what can happen.

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

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

I hereby table the financial statistical report for the Division of Income and Support of the Department of Social Services for the fiscal year 1994-95, and as well I also table the annual report 1994-95 for the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to update members on the Status of the Edge Program, and more specifically I would like to table the list of companies who have entered into contracts with the government pursuant to Section 7 (4) of the Economic Diversification Growth Enterprises Act.

Under the Act, the company that receives EDGE designation must enter into a contract after approval is given by Cabinet, and the contract binds the EDGE Corporation to implementation of its EDGE business plan in return for the benefits provided under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have a total of fourteen contracts that I would like to table today, they are listed in the Statement.

In addition to the fourteen companies, there are ten other companies that have received EDGE designation by Cabinet and work is progressing on finalizing the contractual agreements with each of them. While I have announced these ten designations in the public domain, I am providing the House today with a full listing of the document, what each company is and what they propose to do.

This bring it to a total of twenty-four, the number of companies that have received EDGE designation to date, Mr. Speaker, and their business plans call for new capital investment in the Province in excess of $100 million, and 600 direct, new, permanent jobs. Government continues to receive substantive EDGE inquiries on a weekly basis and further designations are expected to be announced shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of municipalities with respect to the EDGE Program. To date, there are thirty-one municipalities that have formally indicated their willingness to participate in this program by offering municipal property and/or business tax benefits to EDGE firms. Numerous other municipalities have indicated their intent to do the same in the near future. Their participation has strengthened considerably the EDGE program as a business investment tool and I would encourage, as with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, other municipalities who have not yet decided to participate, to give favourable consideration to doing so at the earliest opportunity.

I also wish to inform the House that the Province, through the Premier, has asked the federal government to mirror the EDGE program as it relates to federal corporate income tax. With active federal participation, similar to what has been achieved in respect of municipal participation; the EDGE program has the potential to serve as an even greater economic stimulus than it is serving at present. Federal action along these lines would be appropriate and justified given the significant dislocation caused to the economy, people and communities of this Province by the federal government's decision to close the groundfish fishery.

It can also be implemented without significant budgetary impact at the federal level, given the fact that it is tax-based and would be triggered only in circumstances where new business activity actually occurs.

It is important to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that the Province's proposal to the federal government in not open-ended. It is view that federal mirroring should continue only until the full-time equivalent jobs that were lost due to the federal closure of the fishery have been recouped. We are also sensitive to the possible unfair competitive advantage that such federal tax holidays could provide Newfoundland firms over companies elsewhere in Canada who are in a directly competitive business and marketplace.

It would not be reasonable for us to insist that federal corporate income tax incentives be granted in such circumstance, nor would it be reasonable for us to insist that such incentives be granted in circumstances where they cause a firm elsewhere in Canada to relocate existing employment or business activity to Newfoundland. Government is prepared to accept such limitations on a federally mirrored EDGE program without hesitation.

I would ask hon. members of the House to support our efforts, and all members to promote the EDGE program at every opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased, as the critic for Industry, Trade and Technology on behalf of my party, to stand and support the EDGE legislation as we did when it was introduced in this House. Also I would point out that it was this party that put forward recommendations and suggested changes to the EDGE legislation which this government accepted, which made the EDGE legislation more attractive.

While it is more than acceptable to see creation of new jobs and new investment in this Province - as the minister has indicated, some 600 jobs - the onus is on me to point out today that 600 jobs are clearly not enough. The only initiative that has been forthcoming from this government has been the EDGE legislation.

With respect to the minister's statement with regard to the proposal made to the Federal Government about, let's say, a `double-EDGE,' if you would wish to call it that, he indicates that a proposal has been made to the Federal Government. I ask the minister: Would he table that proposal that was made to the Federal Government, in light of, as he puts it here, "the significant dislocation caused to the economy"? Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about here is significant resettlement that will be caused as a result of this.

Will he also, while tabling that proposal, indicate to the people of this Province what the Federal Government's response has been to date to that proposal, if they are willing to accept it, and what time frames are they looking at? Thank you very much.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 9, 1993, Leette Renee Moores died on an operating table during gall bladder surgery at the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital in St. John's, Newfoundland. Ms Moores was twenty years old and apparently in excellent health.

The Hon. John Rorke, a judge of the Provincial Court, was appointed to carry out an inquiry under the provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act. Judge Rorke held hearings commencing in December of 1994 and, following several adjournments, these hearings were concluded in June of 1995. A report was recently submitted, which I now table.

Judge Rorke made several findings which are set out in the report. These include:

The cause of death was determined as "Blood loss due to a perforated right common iliac as a consequence of a therapeutic misadventure."

Secondly: The surgery was performed by means of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This involves the introduction of a needle into the abdomen and the patient's belly distended with a gas to expand the work space. The surgeon then pushes a cutting instrument called a trocar through the abdominal wall. A tiny television camera is then introduced into the belly cavity. Three other tiny incisions are made and the whole operation is performed indirectly from outside the body via television.

Thirdly: The inquiry judge concluded that the introduction of the cutting instrument - that is a trocar - into the abdomen of Ms Moores by the attending surgeon perforated the artery, producing internal bleeding. Despite observing some pooling of blood the surgeon was unable to observe any source of such bleeding. As a result, the possibility of haemorrhage was discounted by the surgeon when the patient became distressed. Had he not discounted such cause, the surgical team could have quickly opened the abdomen, which would have exposed the puncture of the artery. The inquiry judge concluded at page 24:

"Observation of the interior under direct vision would have exposed the puncture and immediate intervention might have saved Ms Moores' life. Failure to fully investigate the possibility of haemorrhage appears to be error."

Judge Rorke made no recommendations in the inquiry report as, in his view, such general recommendations could not forestall errors, as no fault could be found with the norm. Judge Rorke noted that counsel for the parties at the inquiry did make several recommendations to the inquiry in their written submissions, and commended appropriate bodies to wisely consider the advice contained in those recommendations.

The full report was provided to all interested parties several days ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister once again for providing the report to me before coming into the House, and also for the minister having the insight and the foresight to provide copies to the families. As far as I am concerned, that was very important, especially as it relates to both those incidents.

One of the things that - I didn't have a chance to go through the report, just to read the Ministerial Statement, but I glanced at a couple of the comments made in the report, especially with regard to the cause of death. It is very sad when we look at a report such as this and read papers, and look at newscasts pertaining to such a tragedy in this Province with the health care system. Part of the report by the pathologist, Dr. Avis, said he testified that after the blood flow began there was a period of approximately six to ten minutes during which there was a chance of saving the patient.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the state that the health care system is in in this Province today will not lead to further tragedy. The stress and strain that are on the medical profession today in the Province - nurses, doctors, nursing assistants, whoever is involved in health care in the Province - are under a lot of stress.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: I would say to members opposite to make sure that some of the recommendations that are contained in this report be implemented immediately, especially as it pertains to this particular operation. I won't go on. I haven't the time to go on. The minister knows full well what is in the report and the recommendations that were made.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Premier. The Chrétien government is about to proceed with major changes to unemployment insurance, a program which is extremely important to Newfoundland and Labrador. Will the Premier confirm that the federal government has briefed the provincial government about the looming changes, and will the Premier tell the House of Assembly and the people of this Province now what the changes will mean to Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can't confirm everything the Leader of the Opposition has just said. I can confirm that my colleague the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has had a number of discussions with Mr. Axworthy. In particular, the chairman of the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, the Minister of Education and Training, has had numerous discussions as well.

I have had correspondence with the Prime Minister, I've met with the Prime Minister about it. I've had discussions with the other Atlantic premiers about it. We have asked the Prime Minister of Canada to meet specifically with the four Atlantic premiers. A meeting was tentatively scheduled for, I believe, November 2, if I recall correctly, in Toronto. Unfortunately the Prime Minister had to call the meeting off. It has not as yet been rescheduled. I am waiting to hear, and I guess I will probably enquire of the Prime Minister's office when that is going to be scheduled to discuss just that matter.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not acceptable for the Premier of this Province to take a detached, academic approach to looming cuts to unemployment insurance that are going to devastate this Province. Will the Premier answer a straightforward question: What are those changes going to mean to Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can make those outlandish claims if she wishes. "A detached, academic approach." I never heard of anything so ludicrous. I've been involved extensively over the last number of months in discussions with Mr. Tobin, Mr. Axworthy and the Prime Minister and the other three Atlantic Premiers on this issue and for that matter, all of the Premiers of Canada have discussed the issue as well. That is hardly "a detached, academic approach." A great deal of effort has been put in it and as of this moment I do not know the precise details of what the federal government is proposing. I don't have the details. The two ministers, to whom I have spoken, have had more detailed discussions than I have on the issue and both ministers can speak more clearly to the detail than I can. I don't, and so far as I know, they don't know precisely what is going to be proposed by the federal government.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is shocking. Will the Premier tell us approximately, generally, how much money will be taken out of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy as a result of the proposed cuts in unemployment insurance and approximately how many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be put on the social assistance rolls as a result of the cuts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I could say 5 million, I could say 500 million, I could say 150 million, I could say 350 million. None of it would have any basis in fact because the detail of what is proposed is not yet known. Now maybe the Leader of the Opposition does not accept that or she does not appreciate the words, I don't know. I have heard the comments of the member of parliament to whom she referred, Mr. Baker, I have heard him make statements. He is at the centre of things in Ottawa. Maybe he has some more detail then I do and maybe he has a greater basis for expressing those concerns. I have expressed those same concerns to the Prime Minister and told him what the impact would be on this Province. I have expressed them to the Minister of Finance and to Mr. Tobin. I have discussed them in detail with Mr. Tobin over the last several months. I know the other two ministers have had extensive discussions as well. What I cannot tell the House at the moment is what the minister will propose if, as, and when he puts the proposal forward because to the best of my knowledge it is not, at this moment, determined.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier of this Province has not said a peep publicly to oppose the threatened cuts. Now political leaders elsewhere -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: Leaders in other provinces, such as Premier McKenna in New Brunswick, have loudly and vigorously opposed the proposed cuts in UI entitlement on the part of seasonal workers. Considering the very high percentage of the Newfoundland and Labrador workforce that is employed seasonally, why has this Premier been so silent? Is it not because he is agreeing with Brian Tobin and Jean Chrétien because once again he is aiding and abetting the Federal Liberal Government in imposing cuts on Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I know that following the tradition of the former Premier ranting and raving was an approach. It is not the approach that I follow. Now either it is wrong or it is right but I don't follow that approach. I deal with matters intelligently and make the case publicly. I have done so publicly on numerous occasions, dealt with the issue publicly and I intend to continue to do so. Now I know former Premier Peckford used to rant and rave and that was an approach that he took. I don't particularly agree with that approach. I think there is a much more sensible way to deal with all of the issues confronting us.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday the Minister of Finance tabled a brief statement dealing with Holiday Inns sale or Hotel Buildings Limited sale of properties. Mr. Speaker, a very brief statement indeed in view of the complexity and the importance of the proposal. Can the minister give us more details? Will he agree to table the details of all of the bids? He refers to the tender bids in his statement, was this indeed a tender process in the normal concept of the word? Were tenders submitted in sealed envelops, opened in public all at one time and if so, who was present? Did the bids go to the lowest bidder or the preferred bidder? What analysis was done to determine the cost benefit ratio to the Province of one bid versus the other and was local preference applied? Would he give us some information in that regard?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the hon. member asked three questions. The first was: Will I give full information? If the hon. member gives me a little time I will file it this afternoon in Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. My recollection is that there were ten bids which I mentioned earlier in the House in response to his question. I will give all the details. Secondly, the bids were opened, I believe it was on a Friday in mid October, October 19th or 20th, somewhere in that vicinity. All the bids were opened, I think, in the presence of whoever chose to attend. Thirdly, his question was whether or not any provincial preference was applied? The answer is, no, it was sold to the highest combination and that was between Fortis and Mr. Chaulk for Port aux Basques, I believe it was.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the proposed sale price is well below the book value, which the minister indicated last week was $29.9 million, I believe, and the replacement value is probably five times that or more, certainly for those buildings. Did the minister undertake any cost benefit analysis of selling these properties now versus retaining the properties and leasing them to the highest bidder for operation and management of the facilities? What return would there have been there on a long-term basis, versus selling them now? What are the terms and conditions of the proposed sale? Is there any commitment here for future investment in those properties, any expansion plans of the Fortis Corporation, for example, versus some of the other bids that might have been put in? Would he also tell us if these remain to be Holiday Inns or will they take on another name? Will we lose the benefit of being part of that international chain?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, this time I believe the hon. member asked five questions.

MR. WINDSOR: Six the next time.

MR. DICKS: First, as to the book value. Holiday Inns were not carried at any book value. As I mentioned in response to your earlier questions the calculation of the amount paid to build them back in the 1960s, plus accumulated interest was in the vicinity of $29 million, but that does not take into account the depreciation of those assets over the corresponding period of time, so it does not represent book value, but represents a calculation of monies in that fashion.

Secondly, he said something to the effect that it would cost more to replace them, and that is indeed true. If we were to rebuild these hotels it would be substantially more than they were sold for, however that again does not take into account depreciation and more importantly market value which reflects economic circumstances. As far as the cost benefits analysis, what we looked at in terms of selling them was what the highest price we could realize for those hotels would be. That was, I think, achieved through the tender process. In terms of cost benefits to the Province I tabled some figures about a week or so ago and my recollection is that last year we earned about $90-odd thousand from it, the year before about $121,000, and two years prior to that were loss situations, so I would say the benefit by selling them at this figure of approximately what was in fact $6,485,000 far exceeds the return of approximately $100,000 we have been realizing in the past two years.

Thirdly, were there any terms or (inaudible) for any economic expansion. No, Mr. Speaker, rather than get into a process of negotiating we wanted a clean tender process where we advertised these for sale, saw what bids were there and took the highest. As to whether or not the successful bidders will apply the Holiday Inn franchise is entirely a matter for their negotiations with Holiday Inns.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am trying to determine in my own mind why the minister is in such a hurry here. He obviously has not done any analysis, or asked for any quotations, on what revenues might be derived from retaining these properties and leasing them. Obviously, under the old terms and conditions which were signed in the early 1960s with Atlafic Corporation and carried through to 1993 which was the end of that term, and has been carried through from year to year since then, obviously, government did not get a good rate of return. Atlafic made tremendous amounts of money over that term of the contract and perhaps government could realize a good share of that if they had investigated.

Why is the minister in such a hurry to sell Holiday Inns? Is this part of his $60 million deficit proposal? Is this how he is proposing to deal with that? Is this one of his quick fixes to short-term gain? What next is going to be on the auction block of government? When is Confederation Building going to be sold, Mr. Speaker? Let me ask this question, as has been asked of me, is this perhaps a way of compensating Fortis for the failure of their trumped up hydro deal?

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

MR. DICKS: In the answer to the last question, of course not, Mr. Speaker. Fortis was the highest bidder for four of them in terms of what they offered to the Province in its immediate value. The second thing, no, this is not a way of dealing with the $60 million deficit problem. As I indicated earlier there was a figure of $10 million, I think, budgeted in our Budget this spring that we had intended or hoped to receive from the sale; that was not realized. We were deficient in that proposal.

Thirdly, as regards to an analysis of leasing I think it is pretty clear from the experience we have had that continuing to lease them and having someone else manage them really does not yield any benefit to the Province. The hotel industry has not been in very good shape. Occupancy rates are down and, in fact, were we to continue leasing them would result in probably greater expenditures in terms of capital improvements to retain the Holiday Inn franchises, and frankly I think the government would be in the prospect of losing money in the next few years as opposed to gaining any more money.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

In July of 1994 the National Airports Policy was announced by the Minister of Transport. It deals with airport commercialization. The only form of commercialization permitted is the establishment of a local airport authority. Does the minister and this government support this approach to privatization or downloading of airports?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not support the proposed transfer of airports to the Province or to organizations in the Province as put forth by Transport Canada.

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

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

The minister is aware that in February of 1995 a regional planning group was formed representing various groups, interest groups on the Northeast Avalon, to explore commercialization of the St. John's Airport. This group is meeting, or has met, and made presentations to the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, and the Town of Conception Bay South seeking support in formation of an airport authority. Has this group met with the minister, and if so does the minister support this group and the privatization of the St. John's Airport?

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

MR. EFFORD: It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, if we do not support the proposed transferring of airports to local airport authorities or community organizations then we would not be able to support the question the hon. member is asking.

The position of the Province is very clear. We are saying, as a Province, that the responsibility of the transportation at the airports is a federal responsibility, that if we assume and support what the federal minister is trying to do, at the end of the day when an airport becomes in financial trouble it would then come back on the taxpayers of this Province. We, as a Province, certainly cannot afford that; nor should we take that responsibility. We are saying to the federal minister, to the federal government: This is your responsibility and we are not going to be in the position of offloading on the provincial taxpayers the responsibility of running airports.

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

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In August of this year the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor received $5.5 million under the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Agreement for the implementation of a sewage treatment system. The town has already invested $3 million in phase one of the project, so my question is: Since one-third of the funding for this project comes from the provincial government, I would like to ask the minister if he can give me a report on the status of this project.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, when the tenders were called and ultimately opened, the project was short some $830,000 - the lowest tender. I have to be quite honest and frank with the Member for Grand Falls and say to him that I do not know where to find $850,000 today.

There is also another slight problem with the tendering process. The lowest tender has not been accepted yet because there were some problems with the actual bidding, and the bidding process. I have asked my friend, the Minister of Justice, and his people, to advise my department on how they feel about the actual infraction, and I am waiting for that report to come back from Justice. At that particular point in time, I guess, I will have to address the question of what we are going to do with that particular contract this year, but I must stress to this House that last spring when we announced $25 million worth of infrastructure money, I told the House at the time, if you can remember, that we were stretching that right to the nth degree, right to the limit, and today I can honestly say I would not know where to go to find - in infrastructure or in capital works - the $800,000 less the one-third that the town has offered to pay; I would not know where to find it. I don't know if that job is going to be any easier tomorrow or the next day when I have to deal with the question.

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

MR. MACKEY: So it appears, Mr. Speaker, that the Province seems to be able to come up with funding for renovations and so on, Philip Place and so on, whereas the mayor of the town has said that the town is prepared to make one-third of its commitment, so I just wonder if the minister could advise if there are other alternatives and what are they?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, they talk of golf courses in the Province and I am led to believe that we just helped to fund the one on the Burin Peninsula of which the hon. member is a part of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I am sure the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would love to hear that.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat to the House what I said. I am not in any position today to say whether or not that money is available. I don't know where to find it today; I can only say to the hon. member, give me a chance to go through the system of getting advice with regards to the tendering package and at the end of the day, we will have an answer for him. I don't know to be quite honest about it, where I will find the money today. I will say this to you in all sincerity because you are a new member in the House.

Last year, when we decided to do that massive job which is going to cost some $12 million at the end of the day, it was to clean up the Exploits River. This government's policy with regards to the environment and cleaning up a number of our salmon rivers, has always been a priority as far as I know, since 1989. I can't see for one minute why it wouldn't continue to be a priority with this government.

Now what I am saying to you, at the end of the day is, if we can find the money to assist the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, to complete this project, Mr. Speaker, we will find it, but you have to remember, that today, I am not in a position and we are dealing on a day-to-day basis, with a shortfall in funding in this Province right now in a number of areas, and with all of that taken into consideration, I will let the hon. member know as soon as I possibly can, what the decision of this government is as it relates to his request.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Will the minister confirm that there are approximately 100 medically discharged patients occupying acute care beds in hospitals in this city at a cost in the range of $300 to $500 a day?

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

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

I can't confirm the exact number. I can tell the hon. member, as he knows, that on any given day there are always a number of medically discharged patients at pretty well all of our acute care or tertiary care hospitals in the Province, and the number of 100 may or may not be accurate. I will attempt to get a specific number for him and report that number for his benefit and information to the House tomorrow.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These people who are discharged are candidates for nursing homes and they require Level II and Level III care. Now, since there are waiting lists and very lengthy ones for admission to nursing homes, it is more likely that many of these people will have to stay in hospital for months; in some cases over a year before they can get admitted to a nursing home; there is only a turnover of thirty-five people per month I understand. I heard the minister state that on radio last month.

Now, it costs $150,000 a year to keep a person in an acute care bed and 100 people approximately - if that figure is accurate, the minister can confirm that - that is $15 million a year. These people can be kept in a nursing home for $5 million a year. What does the minister plan to do to address the tying up of expensive acute care beds with medically discharged patients, who only require one-third of that cost?

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

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

The proposition that the hon. member puts forward is not entirely correct. The numbers may be somewhat correct. The perception that there are long waiting lists for long-term care is not entirely correct; the fact that there may be 100 people in medically discharged beds at the moment does not indicate that they are all trying to get into institutions in the St. John's area, as he would have us believe.

There are not, in fact, long waiting lists in long-term care facilities around the Province. We have put in place in excess of 2,900 long-term care beds in the Province. That is 200 more than the Orsborn Royal Commission recommended by 1995 when they did their report on institutional long-term care facilities back in 1984, 1985, 1986. They recommended that we go from 2,200 to 2,700. We have gone to 2,900-plus. So we have made ample provision on a provincial basis, and while there may be some temporary lineups in certain areas, it is not, in fact, a really serious situation throughout the total system.

As to his asking what we are doing, I can tell him one of the things we are doing. We have recently commissioned through the Health Research Centre at Memorial University a complete study of a continuum of the need in terms of continuum of care from enriched needs, personal care homes and long-term care homes in the Province. Once we have the information presented to us from that continuum of care study, which I anticipate will be within the next four months, we will be in a better position to know exactly what our needs are in all of those areas for the immediate future.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem with nursing home beds is studied to death. The minister has a study, the Agnew Peckham study, that identifies it here in the St. John's region. He knows well the need for future beds.

I have spoken with many people who are in the same situation I referred to. In fact, the minister announced they cannot go back into the community because of a cap of only about eight hours per day. They need several hours a day, almost twenty-four hours care per day on level II and level III people. The minister has them in a situation where they can't go back into the community because of a cap and they can't get into nursing homes because of a lengthy waiting list.

The demand for nursing home beds is far in excess of the supply that is there today, and the minister knows fully well. We can't keep these people in expensive hospital beds, and with an aging population this is going to get worse. I ask the minister: What plan does he have to address this problem not only in the short term but in the long term?

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

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

I attempted to answer that question a minute ago and with the bantering back and forth he may have missed the answer.

I have indicated to the House and the hon. member that we are in the process, as we speak, of having a full continuum of care analysis done by the health research unit at Memorial University to indicate to us what it is exactly we need at the moment and for the foreseeable future in terms of facilities to handle people who have long-term care needs, in terms of analyzing what we have with respect to personal care homes in the Province, and also in terms of telling us really what the need is and what we should be trying to address in terms of need in the community-based services.

That continuum of care review is in process as we speak. Once we get that, within the next three or four months, we will have a more definitive idea as to what we should be planning for over the next five to ten years.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. In the most recent edition of The Voisey's Bay News, Mr. Carson of Diamond Fields indicates that it is their intention to put a nickel smelter in this Province. `That is our intention,' Mr. Carson said, and I quote. He also goes on to say that there are good smelters throughout the world only operating at 50 per cent capacity, et cetera. So there are obviously international pressures against putting a smelter in this Province. If we assume that there is a sufficient ore reserve to warrant a smelter, to make a smelter economically viable, will this government not issue a licence unless there is a smelter, under those circumstances?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have said it loud and clear many times what the circumstances are relative to Voisey's Bay, and there will be a smelter in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the minister won't give a yes or no answer. All he is stating are government's intentions, and intentions are all we are getting from the mining companies.

Another matter with regard to this project. When that mineral discovery was first found, this House was in the process of amending downwards the mineral tax regulations. The Premier, in the last session of the House, indicated the tax rules were going to be changed because they were overgenerous for a Voisey's Bay-type find. The mining community is out there saying you don't change the rules in the middle of the game. The government has itself in a bit of a fix. Can the minister indicate when and how they are going to get themselves out of that fix?

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

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, it's a great fix to be in. It's the best mineral discovery we have had in this Province in the 498 years since John Cabot discovered the rock, and I am looking forward to the fix.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the fix, if, indeed, we do get decent or generous royalties from the Voisey's Bay operation, has this government approached the Federal Government on this and other like projects with regard to an agreement as we have with Hibernia so that we don't lose dollar for dollar on equalization?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, any royalties or taxes that we collect on the mineral industry will be treated as other taxes and royalties that we get on the mineral industry for taxes onshore, and there is no question about it; we do not have to enter any special agreements with Ottawa. This is routine and natural.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The provincial budget documents show a total allocation under the MOGs of $41.8 million, and the budget also shows an expected revenue of $1.8 million. What are the sources of this particular revenue, I ask the minister, and what proportion of that revenue has been achieved to date? In other words, is this part of the budget proceeding as the minister had anticipated when the budget was passed some months ago?

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for a quick answer from the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it will be a quick answer, too. I will just give you one example of revenue under the industrial water supply system. The hon. member should be aware of Marystown, for example. The towns pay the department for using their water supply system. I don't know exactly how much that amounts to - it is a good question. I will provide the information to the hon. member tomorrow in the House. Give me a chance to go over and I will get the exact details, and I will be able to give him the exact answer to his question tomorrow.

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

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district, Baie Verte - White Bay district. I will read the prayer of the petition;

We the residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula are very concerned with the recent cutbacks of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. We believe that these cutbacks will seriously affect the safety as well as the overall quality of transportation on the Baie Verte Peninsula.

We ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reconsider these reductions in order to ensure that the safety and quality of road transportation is retained at an acceptable safety level, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of several petitions I have presented on behalf of my constituents over the last few weeks and there are more going to be coming in over the next few weeks. Mr. Speaker, I don't think my district is any different from a lot of the other rural Newfoundland areas who are very concerned as they start to see the season commence where the snow begins. I guess, in a sort of way the panic button is starting to be pushed because they have very grave concerns of the overall safety on our highways that is going to come this winter.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, we heard report after report of situations whereas we could not respond efficiently to what was happening on our highways in regards to the weather, Mr. Speaker, especially with rural Newfoundland, in my district, for example, with twenty-one communities, sixteen trunk roads off the two main roads. That is what we have in my district. I am sure that compares to many other rural Newfoundland districts who have the very serious concerns that we speak about here today and that is, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost the safety of the people who use those roads. For example, if they go down to the main road on the Baie Verte Highway, we have another sixteen branching off that and then also the other main road which goes down to La Scie, another eleven communities that branches off that, Mr. Speaker.

These people who live in the smaller communities are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, not just for the general things they do in the run of a day when they see a snowstorm developing but also, Mr. Speaker, two other things especially now, is the health care. For example, they would have to not just go to the Baie Verte clinic now but to a two or three hour drive to get to either Corner Brook Hospital or Grand Falls Hospital. So these people that are in the far reaching communities have even more concerns.

Second of all, Mr. Speaker, is the children who drive on school buses from these small communities. Now their parents have to see that when they go on these buses that the roads are safe for them. So, Mr. Speaker, when we start to talk about the cutbacks, I wonder how thoroughly the minister really thought about the rural Newfoundland communities. I mean the real rural Newfoundland communities, the ones that are far reaching out there, that are the last to be serviced when the snowstorm hits. If those people have to get to a hospital quickly, what happens, Mr. Speaker? In a community like Purbeck's Cove or down in Wild Cove we have to come up high grades of hill, where last year it was bad enough, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister really have anybody believe that with these further reductions - who are the ones who are affected most, Mr. Speaker? It is the people in the further out rural parts of this Province - that set of people - and the minister makes jokes about it and that is what is a real problem. I would like for the people of the different communities to sit here and watch the minister on how he reacts to these cuts, Mr. Speaker. It is a big joke to him because there is no problem for St. John's, Corner Brook and Grand Falls but there is a problem for people who still live in those communities.

Now this Province might have an agenda to resettle this Province in some way but these people still live in these communities today, they are still going to live in those communities next week and they are still going to live there next year and these are the people that are most affected by the cutbacks of this government, especially as it relates to transportation. They are the people that are most concerned because they are the ones that are most affected. That is the problem we have here, Mr. Speaker. People down in Wild Cove, it was bad enough last year with the reductions in transportation, they waited so long for the roads to be cleared, they are going to have to wait longer this year. If there is an emergency in the morning so that a person has to go to the hospital -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) no reductions.

MR. SHELLEY: No reductions, he says. Now all of a sudden we find out that the Baie Verte depot, for example, has only half the number of mechanics that used to be there. Now there are hearing rumours that they are going to have to put equipment on flatbeds, send it to Grand Falls, have it fixed, sent back to Baie Verte and then plough the roads. Now, Mr. Speaker, how can the minister sit there and have somebody think that they are going to believe that? We have a dozer, a flyer or whatever that breaks down, we have two mechanics there, they cannot do them all. They have to be sent, put on a flat bed and sent to Grand Falls for a mechanic to do it in Grand Falls and then sent back down to Baie Verte Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, it is totally ridiculous and this minister - it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, when he did start to consider this there was no consideration given to the real rural parts of Newfoundland. Those are the people who are weakest and those are the people who are most affected by cuts like this, that this minister has done through callousness, with no thought given to these people of the situation that arises with school busing and also the medical care of these people, Mr. Speaker.

It comes right back down to safety. I will continue to present these petitions. Because these people I'm sure, mark my words here today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - that before this winter is out this minister will have a lot to answer to, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. When it comes to cutbacks in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation we've seen many cutbacks over the past number of years. This year we've seen as many as 200 people being laid off from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

One group of people that is being hit very hard is the mechanics within the department itself and at the various depots. Now we have a situation where if you have a piece of equipment that is broken down on the highway we have to ask the question: How long before that piece of equipment will be repaired? Can you imagine out in the middle of a snowstorm or somewhere and we have a piece of equipment broken down? We have to get people to get out to that piece of equipment and try and get it repaired. We may have to call people back from home, type of thing, because we don't have enough staff. What does that do with respect to the safety of the travelling public?

With respect to the cutbacks themselves, as I was saying we have hundreds of people being laid off within the department, and not only in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, but the government in general. That has to have a great impact on the morale of the people working in the various government departments. That in effect will affect the economy of the Province.

I will give you an example. I know of an individual who retired this year, and her husband was working, and she had planned to buy a vehicle for her husband. Because of the doubt with respect to the person's job or how secure that person's job is who is working with the government, she decided not to spend her severance pay and to purchase that vehicle. How many times is that happening throughout the public service within this Province?

This government has to look at restoring the public confidence. We have to start restoring the confidence of the employees of this government. One way of doing that, and I have to say, and I've said it in the past and I will say it again, the Premier of this Province I believe is probably the most negative person in the Province when it comes to the people of the Province. I've yet to see this Premier stand and say something positive about the people of the Province, about the economy of the Province. It is always doom and gloom. We have to get away from that.

I believe the government has gone too far with respect to public safety and putting the public safety at risk on the highways. I brought this up before. There are other people who have brought it up before. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation always sloughs it off, makes a joke, ridicules it. I hope that these actions and the words of the minister will not come back to haunt the minister this year or the following year or whatever. I don't say the minister will be there that much longer anyway so I probably won't have to worry about next winter. This winter is our concern, the most immediate time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time's up!

MR. J. BYRNE: It can't be up yet, Mr. Speaker. Just a few words on the resettlement. I believe the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay brought it up. This government since it got elected in 1989 has a number of policies in place directly related to resettlement, resettlement on a large scale in this Province and outside the Province.

First of all, we saw the amalgamation issue arise forcing small towns into larger communities. Then we saw the municipal operating grants being cut, restructured, again cutting money to the municipalities. Then we saw cuts to the road component, cut from $2,200 per kilometre per year down to I think it was $65 per kilometre last year. Again, forcing small towns and people out of small towns because the towns cannot provide the services any more with this government on their backs and the down loading all the time.

Then of course we saw health care cuts. What is happening in the Province now, Mr. Speaker? Health care cuts -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

I just remind the hon. member that he is speaking to the petition. He should restrict his remarks to the material allegations of the petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the petition was referring to cuts with respect to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. I believe there is relevance here. Because I am basically associating the cuts with the government and the health care cuts - there are cuts in every department within this Province, Mr. Speaker, and if you talk about health care we do have a situation where the cuts themselves, with respect to Works, Services and Transportation, if we have a snow storm and the roads are not being ploughed or cleared properly, and we have someone who is sick and we have to have an ambulance go to that person's house, then we have a situation where the cuts in health care, the cuts in all government departments, are affecting the supply of services in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is Private Members' Day, and it is the day that... if the Brazil nut, or whatever he is, sitting in the Opposition Leader's seat would be quiet we will try to get on with this.

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

MR. ROBERTS: No, the hon. gentleman, even when he does hear does not understand. I can answer for the first but not the second, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is the day when the Opposition get to choose the topic of debate, and I understand they wish to debate the notice that stands in the name of my friend from Burin - Placentia West. With that, if Your Honour would call it, we will sit back and listen with interest to what he says. He and I will both be learning it at the same time.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they are something like the minister; they are (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, this resolution that I introduce today, I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Education and Training, will debate the issue.

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

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have failed to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits; and

WHEREAS federal and provincial government cutbacks have been a contributing factor to this economic situation;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED this House call upon government to implement an emergency employment program to help alleviate the economic hardship facing many families in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I brought forth that resolution in the House to be debated today because I am concerned about what this government is not doing to protect the unemployed people in this Province. Day in and day out, for the past number of weeks our office has been abuzz with telephone calls from people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, people who have worked and dedicated their lives to hard work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, they are calling because there are no construction jobs, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They are calling because this minister has sat idly by and not provided one cent of the capital funding from the Province - we are talking about for road work in this Province. If it wasn't for the Roads for Rails deal that the Member for Port de Grave adamantly opposed, there would be no construction work in this Province and we would not be receiving the calls from construction workers that we are receiving today who do not qualify for unemployment insurance, because there would be none of them who would have any insurable weeks of earnings.

This government knows that this Province and this country is on the verge of making a major announcement that affects the unemployment insurance in this Province, and the Premier was asked questions in this House today about what is going to happen, and he washed his hands clear of it. The Premier knows full well what is about to happen in this House, and I would suspect he has his agent over there now meeting with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to discuss what is taking place in terms of this resolution, to see if they can amend it, to see if they can throw up static, to see if they can build a concrete wall to protect their friends in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, who were on the threshold of scuttling the seasonal employees of this Province.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, I honestly don't know how people who represent seasonally employed workers, can stand idly by and know what is coming down the tube next week. Today, I heard George Baker on the radio.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Nobody is standing by, and we had a Private Members resolution there a couple days (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Your Private Members resolution never once referred to the Federal Government - not one reference, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The Chair has recognized the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Eagle River, your resolution was a sham. Your resolution never once made reference to the Federal Government and their proposed cutbacks, never once, Mr. Speaker, was a reference made to the Federal Government. It was a sham, put up to throw up static, so that when it comes down next week and they announce that the guts have been cut out of the UI program for the people of this Province, you will be able to say: We did something. You did absolutely nothing - I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology wants to say something.

Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one reference to the Federal Government by the Member for Eagle River, who represents seasonal employees in this Province. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, nobody should betray their constituents for the protection of a clique in Ottawa that is about to sell out the rights, the birthright of Newfoundlanders - nobody, and particularly the Member for Eagle River. And that's what is happening, that's what is taking place in this Province, according to what I am hearing.

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a good man - I wish you had the courage, one-tenth of the courage that George Baker has, one-tenth of the courage. We didn't hear you on saying what George Baker is saying; we didn't hear the Premier on saying what George Baker is saying; we didn't hear the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on, indeed we didn't. Why, I wonder?

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

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I do know the difference. I would suspect the difference is that George Baker is not looking for an appointment to the Supreme Court - that's the difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or to Cabinet.

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

What is going to happen in this Province when people's UI is cut? What is going to happen to seasonal, unemployed people in this Province whose unemployment is going to be cut by 1 per cent each year? What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, when the majority of people in this Province, I would suggest, are going to have their UI cut to the extent that they will qualify for a supplement from social assistance?

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

MR. TOBIN: Not going to happen? Now, the Member for Eagle River just made a statement, Mr. Speaker, that nobody, this is coming from the Premier's Office - he is his Parliamentary Assistant.

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

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Eagle River states it is not going to happen, that people will have to have their UI subsidized by social assistance.

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

MR. TOBIN: Who will?

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

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You mark it down.

MR. TOBIN: You won't lead any charge, because if you were about to lead a charge, you would not be selling out your constituents right now trying to get into Cabinet, I say to the Member for Eagle River. If you want to lead a charge, lead it now, challenge your Premier, challenge him, take him on. Challenge the Premier for not saying anything, challenge the minister for not saying anything, that's what you have to do. Challenge the Premier, Mr. Speaker, instead of cuddling up to the Premier. Challenge him for not going out and fighting for Newfoundlanders, defending their rights to draw unemployment insurance, if they have the courage of their convictions and that member were not about to sell his soul for a Cabinet post - and I don't think he will ever get one, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: You are a sham. It is a sham you are trying to perpetrate. That's what is going on. You are coming in here, bravo, hero, challenge the Premier for not defending the rights of Newfoundlanders to be entitled to UI the same as they have been since Confederation. Challenge the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for not saying one word. That's what you do. Challenge your minister for not saying one word and not standing up for the rights of the people on UI.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there was one opportunity for me to disagree with the Premier of this Province and I disagreed with him publicly. I refused to sit at a table with the Premier of this Province one time. My colleague, the Member for Grand Bank knows all about it and so does everyone else. When the time came, my constituents came above everybody else - that's what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't, it had something to do with the fisheries, when the fish plants were closing down in this Province. And Burin was going to close, but I stood up for Burin and fought for Burin. I can tell the minister something right now, there would have never been a secondary processing operation in Burin if it had not been for the Burin committee headed by Lou Bailey at the time and Brian Peckford. There would have never been secondary processing in Burin.

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

MR. TOBIN: I had all to do with it, Mr. Speaker, because at the time, when De Bané, Simmons, and the crowd came down there were signing a deal that was going to close Burin forever - that's what they were doing. But I stood up for Burin and refused to have my signature attached as a witness, I say to the Member for Port au Port.

I will never, never, betray the people of Burin - Placentia West as long as I am here, and if that means standing up and defending their rights to continue to draw UI without the slashing that is about to take place, without the attachment of a 1 per cent reduction a year because they are seasonal employees. What do I say to the fishermen in Red Harbour who have hauled their guts out as inshore fishermen all their lives, from May until October or November? What do I say to them?

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

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Go tell your (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell him.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is unparliamentary for members to make comments from their seat, or anybody else's seat unless they are recognized by the Chair. I ask members to restrain themselves, and if not I will stand and interrupt debate until there is silence in the House.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

That goes for both sides.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the people of Red Harbour, Baine Harbour, and every other place in my district where there are seasonal employees, fishermen or whatever they are, to the woodworkers throughout this Province, and to all seasonal employees, I will never put the stripe of my political party in Ottawa ahead of the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; whether that be the people from Burin - Placentia West, from Eagle River, from Carbonear, from Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, from Fortune - Hermitage, from Humber Valley, from Grand Bank, from St. Mary's - the Capes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Member for Green Bay, and the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I just made a ruling and I will stick to that ruling. The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West continues debate, but I will halt debate until it stops.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say that with what sincerity I can muster.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I made a ruling.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling. What is happening here today is there is a guilt complex setting in. There is a conscious clicking. They are people aware that the boom is about to fall and they have not stood up. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has not said a word about what is going to come down the tube. The Member for Eagle River has not said a word about what is going to come down the tube. And this Premier has failed us miserably on this issue, on what is going to happen.

There are people calling our offices, and if they are calling our offices, they are calling your offices as well, asking, begging, to see if government can come up with some sort of an emergency employment program. I'm sure the Member for Carbonear is getting calls asking if government is going to come up with a program.

We talk about problems that are happening here. The other day -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TOBIN: The other day, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board got up in this House and talked about the amount of money he is going to lose on transfer payments this year - I think he said $5,000 or $6,000 per person - because of out-migration. The other night we saw a program that showed, so far this year, 8,500 people leaving our Province.

What are you going to do with that? Where are they going? B.C., Nova Scotia, number two? What does Nova Scotia have to offer to attract people? Why do they have employment opportunities in Atlantic Canada that are slipping away from us in Newfoundland? Why are people moving to New Brunswick in Atlantic Canada because there are opportunities that we don't have here in Newfoundland? Those are the questions we have to ask, and it is time that someone gave answers.

When I saw that program the other night of that family packing their clothes on the back of a truck and heading away, if there was anyone in this Province who witnessed that and was not emotionally affected by what took place, they have a turnip for a heart.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will be back in a little while.

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

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

It gives me some pleasure to rise today to speak to the resolution put forward by the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

First of all, let me, if I might, just go back over the situation associated with emergency response programming and how it came into place and why it came into place. I think we realized at that time, and I think an awful lot of us will agree, that most things were tied into what a lot of people felt was a short-term recession, a recession that would last, at max, two years. We also knew that the TAGS program and NCARP at that time, I might add, were pouring into the Province, and people who really had no entitlement to NCARP were receiving it. Subsequently, the Federal Government resolved that program.

Our employment emergency program, I think the first year, was somewhere in the vicinity of $12 million. It was used and there was a tremendous amount of negative outpouring from not only the Federal Government of the day - and it wasn't the present Federal Government, I might add - that the Newfoundland Government was involved in not creating long-term meaningful, skill-training type of employment for the people of the Province so that they could access either full-time programming, or at least be involved in meaningful work that would get them at least twenty-five or thirty weeks of work. Most of this work was associated, as we know, with the dependency that this Province has had too long - we all know that - and that was our fishery, our groundfish, our forest products and our mining.

By comparison today, if Kruger lost its wood source tomorrow then what would happen is that -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Kilbride that there will be an opportunity for him to participate in the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

What would happen is that the Town of Corner Brook would really be in trouble. We all realize that there are spin-off industries - the same thing would happen in Grand Falls - but when the groundfish went, it didn't impact upon a city or a town, it impacted upon the whole Island. It showed the tremendous dependency that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had on the groundfish.

Now, we came forward with a program. Again, we took the scourge of the then Tory government of the day for doing so. They called us everything but doing the thing right. How dare we put in place... The Mulroney Administration said: How dare the Government of Newfoundland put in place an emergency response program to bring people up to a level - just the mere, meagre, peak level - of qualifying for UI? that was not what UI was intended for. And they rammed that down this government's throat, and told us time and time again. The next year, the government had changed, but the psychology hadn't changed. The Federal Government still told this government, with a $10 million program, was doing wrong. It wasn't the way to do it. You cannot qualify people to access UI. It is improper; it is not right. And they used all the right reasons; they felt, at that time.

Last year, I want to remind hon. members, after a long debate with the Federal Government, and discussion with our colleagues here, we found $5 million to apply to emergency response funding to create employment. The difference was, we added to that program a five point criteria. And all hon. members remember, it was very difficult for people to access the emergency response program.

I told this House last January, as I tell this House today - I told all the members and I told the people of the Province, that it was not advisable to look forward to seeing a similar type program at this time of the year or ever again.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we deal with this now because it has, I suppose, a political platform. It has a political platform for everybody to get up and thump their chest and make a noise, and kick up a racket, and say `nobody cares', and so forth and so on. Let me say that the program design was not consistent, of course, with other provincial employment programs and with wage subsidy policies put forward by HRDC. It was not consistent, and it does nothing for us as we sit at the table with the minister responsible for UI, where we have a tremendous dependency, I say to hon. members opposite, for our workforce, our seasonal workforce that has historically been able to access UI, fellows and women who have got as high as thirty-five weeks in the forest industry, as I say, and the construction industry and so forth and so on. Now, all of a sudden, we find the technology in our forest operation is reducing those weeks, and we are trying to negotiate with the Federal Government and say to them: It is extremely important that you do little or no tampering with unemployment insurance because of the horrendous impact that it will have on the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, believe me when I say to you that we told Mr. Axworthy, with figures to substantiate, on every category from young people just graduating from school, we took all the numbers associated with different industries, we went and had meetings, we burned the midnight oil, I say, Mr. Speaker, trying to put together the numbers that would make Newfoundland's case, a case prima. We told Mr. Axworthy, `Listen, for heaven's sake, don't compare the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with BC, with Alberta, with Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec - the province, of course, with real financial problems, as we know today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Axworthy, I say to the hon. member. We told him -when I say, we; the minister, myself, officials from my department and his department and on some occasions even the Minister of Social Services at the meeting. So we identified to Minister Axworthy, the minister responsible, that it was extremely important that he know and understand what kind of a disaster, if there were a dramatic change in the unemployment insurance system, what an impact and what an effect it would have on the people of this Province.

Now, we have heard a fair amount of rhetoric. The possibility is it may be factual but I have great respect for my colleague in Ottawa, Mr. Baker, who made some statements this morning. As the Premier said today in Question Period, Mr. Baker may be dead on. I sense he might be close eight years from now but it is very, very difficult for anybody on this side - and I say this in all honesty; you cannot stand in this House or anywhere else, as an official of government and/or even representing your constituents, and talk innuendo and `maybe'. That isn't the way to do it. You can't have a reliable resource or source and tell the world you have this great source, and then at the end of the day you are entirely wrong...you are entirely wrong - I say that to my friend, the Member for Kilbride, who had last year this tremendous source that the Dockyard was going to shut down lock, stock and barrel at the end of June.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he wrong?

MR. MURPHY: No, it didn't happen. I say to the member, he was dead wrong. There are four ships on the synchrolift right now, there is one on dry dock right now and there are two being worked on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is alright. Well, then, that doesn't tell me that the Dockyard is closed, I say to the member.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether Mr. Baker is saying it because he does have some source of information. What I will say is this, that we did not in our meetings, negotiations, whatever you want to call them with Mr. Axworthy, we didn't do it in the media, we didn't bawl out `sold the shop' or get on. We sat down and brought the logic of the problem to the minister. We brought the logic of the problem to the minister. We have also dealt with Newfoundland's minister, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tobin. We dealt sincerely.

Now, whether or not we made an impact on the circumstances related to the people in this Province and the people who are seasonally employed with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the people who are seasonally employed with the Minister of Environment, the people who are seasonally employed in construction - have their time reduced - the people who are involved in farming, a much more active endeavour going on in the Province of late. All of these people have to be protected because through no fault of their own, Mr. Speaker, they can only attain so much work, and we don't make the rules.

Some of the rules will change. I don't think that Mr. Axworthy and it is just - again I say, I don't know for sure, it is hearsay, it is like pulling teeth trying to get information out of the bureaucrats in Ottawa and I've talked to them, god knows how many times. You feel so frustrated trying to get information that you can count on, however, that's the way it is. I sense - and I say this and am totally prepared to withdraw it if and when the time comes - I sense that July 1, will be the kick-in period for the new UI program.

MR. EFFORD: This year?

MR. MURPHY: No, next year, `John', it can't be this year - July 1 of 1996.

MR. EFFORD: That's what I mean - 1996.

MR. MURPHY: I sense - and I say to the minister, `I sense' -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. MURPHY: That July 1, whatever Mr. Axworthy says will be the start time of the new UI program.

MR. MANNING: Do you know anything about it?

MR. MURPHY: I said, `I sense'. The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, Mr. Speaker, engaged in dialogue when the Member for Burin - Placentia West was on his feet. Now, would you ask him, please, Mr. Speaker, if he would be kind enough - if he is going to listen, let him listen. If he is not going to listen, tell him to keep his yap shut.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Tell him to keep his yap shut.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: He soon won't have a seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is unparliamentary to make comments from your own seat, and I guess, in terms of Parliamentary law and rules, it is doubly unparliamentary if you are in somebody else's seat, to make a comment. I ask the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes to restrain himself.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes -

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank you for your protection.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say again to the hon. member, that it is only hearsay - I said that to the member but he didn't hear because he wasn't listening. It is hearsay that it may probably start July, next year. What will be the impact? Will it be hours or will it be weeks? I am hearing it will be hours. The hours will work out on a thirty-six hour week. Let's say, a first time entry is now twenty weeks, as we know it.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I think it boils down - I say to the logical Member for Ferryland, who always seems to ask and get involved in dialogue in debate - and I don't mind responding to his questions because he does it in such a gentlemanly fashion.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes. I say to the member, I think if we look at it, from what I am hearing it comes out somewhere in the vicinity of twenty-two-and-a-touch weeks. Now, there is an advantage to that, because if we measure it in hours, and how often have we heard, a lot of us, that somebody who is fortunate enough to acquire twenty weeks, and somebody offers him three days work, two days work and say: `Now, boy, don't fool up me stamps because I got good, high stamps,' well, the new program may very well say that you take those three days and that will add distance and dollars to your UI down the road.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about (inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, I say to the member, that's my understanding. Now, I don't know, we are going to have to wait. I understand that next Thursday, Mr. Axworthy will stand in his place in Ottawa and deliver the new UI program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: Just to clue up.

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

MR. MURPHY: - and I say to the member, I look forward to Mr. Axworthy standing in his place and giving us what we hope, all of us should hope, is a program not so negative that it really destroys our Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are out there, sincerely trying to find employment at a very difficult time to attain that employment. So I look forward to dialogue and debate with the Member for Ferryland -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) question?

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about somebody who works like a half-week -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just wondering, somebody who is on part-time, such as, let's say a nurse who works two shifts a week forever, will that person ever be able to qualify for UI if he doesn't get those weeks over twenty or thirty - if they just fall short but are on maybe for months and months, is there an avenue open for somebody like that, or any seasonal or part-time worker?

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me, by example, say to the hon. member - now, I don't want someone to say I said this and hold me to it because it is hearsay, okay?

What I am saying to the member is, by example, if somebody was a nurse and worked two and a half days a week, in fifty-two weeks that individual would accumulate in hours, she would not have the weeks, but she would accumulate in hours the equivalent of twenty-four or twenty-five weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Exactly, I say to the member, so in that there may be some longer hours in initial entry, and the same thing would apply for yearly entry, where we have twelve weeks now. It depends on the employment circumstances. In St. John's sometimes it is ten weeks or twelve weeks, and sometimes it is thirteen weeks because the scale goes up and down. I say that I cannot support the member's resolution because it deals with an ongoing problem and it does nothing, it leaves no impression across this nation for us, it does not help us negotiate with our federal colleagues, so I say to the member -

MR. J. BYRNE: Could you answer a question?

MR. MURPHY: I would be happy to answer a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern is asking a question of the minister.

MR. J. BYRNE: You made a statement that you sense by July 1 next year, this may happen or that may happen. I wonder if you have an apparition from Lloyd Axworthy?

MR. MURPHY: I can honestly say, as all hon. members know, it is totally unacceptable for any of us to stand in this House and mislead, tell lies, to deceive, or whatever. I say to the member, (1) no, I do not know the exact date. I say to the Member for Ferryland, (2) no, I do not have a package. What the Premier told all of us today is accurate, that we are trying to do our very best to gather as much information, but we do not have direct correspondence associated with the new program.

With those few words I thank my colleagues for the opportunity and I look forward to discussing the issue with sensible people opposite for another day.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: I am glad today to be able to stand here in my place and support the Private Member's bill as put forth by my friend and colleague from Burin - Placentia West, the idea to put pressure on the government of our Province to implement an emergency employment program to help alleviate the economic hardship facing many families in this Province. Well, I can speak from knowledge of the people in the Placentia district because I know them. I have heard stories from other districts and today I am pleased to be able to support a resolution, a private member's bill. But to hear the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations giving us a little bit of information to show why he is a minister, just enough, but then saying that the Premier knew, the Premier told him this morning, which all accounts had been pointed at for six years, is that there is only one minister in the provincial Liberal government and that is the Premier. All the rest of them are getting paid ministerial salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now that is not right.

MR. CAREEN: That is the truth. The truth might be hard to take but the truth will set you free, so the good book says. Anyway, the people in Placentia district, and Placentia itself, the town of Placentia, the new amalgamated town and the areas close by, Fox Harbour, Ship Harbour and Point Verde, unemployment runs around 73 per cent and that includes TAGS, people who once contributed very greatly to the coffers of this Province have in the last few years encountered many difficulties. Then you have places like Long Harbour and Mount Arlington Heights who contributed and are now on the rack.

Fishing communities such as Fair Haven and Little Harbour. Southern Harbour, another place that felt resettlement. Resettlement of twenty-odd years ago that while it was despised, Mr. Speaker, was more forthright than the one we see today. We see a more subtle resettlement program. We see a resettlement program where people are not even being paid to move. Every day we hear about others moving.

I mentioned here the week before last that the Argentia ferry this year took more one-way tickets out of Argentia than ever before in the history of that service. These people are coming from Eastern Newfoundland. You can get a return ticket through Argentia, or you can go out on the Argentia ferry and get a return ticket through Port aux Basques, but these people were buying one-way tickets out of Argentia. Out-migration. It is an echo through this Province.

We all know, while we mightn't all repeat it here, that a family reunion in this Province now is either a wake or a funeral. It is very sad. Then we have the western influence in Ottawa, because it is certainly not an eastern influence, that is poor bashing, really, and the talk about Atlantic Canada in some cases and Quebec in another. Atlantic Canada gets the bad name for drawing UI, and in particular Newfoundland does. It is worth noting however that there are more UIC beneficiaries in the greater Montreal region than in all Atlantic Canada. Isn't that something? But we, Newfoundlanders on the extreme east, out in the North Atlantic, get the bad name while our fish - I don't care what the administration was in Ottawa - was sold off for wheat out of Saskatchewan and washing machines out of Ontario. We are still paying.

Newfoundland, we all know, you call Stats Canada and ask about the unemployment figure. They give you rosy ones. Because it is only given to people who visit manpower centres, not by the vast numbers of Newfoundlanders who have given up on the whole system. Manpower out in Placentia is liable to tell you it might be 21 per cent, 22 per cent unemployment home. Well, it is closer to 73 per cent. It isn't much to brag about.

I said earlier about poor bashing. This unemployment insurance is a right, it is a great benefit. The Axworthys of this world, I don't know where they came from. He is supposed to be from Winnipeg, but it must be Winnipeg in eastern Russia because it is not certainly Winnipeg in Canada. Talking about a social conscience. How these UIC changes are going to hurt this Province we can only imagine. Because every day - and I know, and I can guess - every rural member in this House gets numerous calls from men and women, old and young, looking for work and desperate. People in danger of losing their houses. Still, poor bashing continues.

It hurts people in their daily lives. The adults and the children are shunned, despised, pitied, patronized, humiliated, or ignored in some cases. The individuals are blamed for being poor. The shifts are going from the public's focus to individual poor people, and off on the governments and corporations which are a much bigger part of the problem than the poor people are.

The unemployment insurance benefit has some $5 billion in surplus, of which the federal government is only the custodian. The Royal Bank last year made a profit of $1 billion, and this year that profit will be more than $1 billion, so I can imagine that they still want, and others like them, to create and reap the benefits of this country while the poor are just allowed to have something to eat.

Mr. Paul Martin, in his budget, the Finance Minister, announced the government's intention to reduce the overall size of the unemployment insurance program by a minimum of 10 per cent, and achieve additional cost savings through administrative changes in the unemployment insurance program. Paul Martin, the minister; now, do you remember? He had ships, and then he got them under flags of convenience, and instead of hiring Canadian sailors for good wages he had them crewed by foreign sailors for dirt wages. It is all right for the Minister of Finance federally to talk out of a comfortable pew, but what about the boatmen in Bonavista North, or what about the inshore fishermen who are left down where I came from? We know the moratorium is in place, but there are still people able to do some fishing, crab and lump and lobster, black-backs.

This government we have here in Newfoundland is not willing to fight for the people of this Province. They criticized Peckford for Ottawa bashing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I will tell you one thing; you might criticize me for a lot of thing, but you will not criticize me for keeping my mouth closed.

Peckford fought for Newfoundland. He fought the Liberals in Ottawa, and he fought the Tories. Jim McGrath wasn't long a Minister of Fisheries. Was it a week, eight or nine days, before Peckford turned on him on an issue that was hurting the people of this Province? In six years, or especially in the last two, has the Premier turned on his own Liberal counterparts? Has his government? No. They can get away with what they like, inflict any kinds of problems on this Province, and they do not say anything. They do not say a word.

We are going through a bad time. The UIC is under attack, TAGS is under attack, and the people of this Province are under attack. I would say to this government to listen to their conscience, but that government never, ever takes advice from strangers.

I live with the poor daily, I hear from the poor daily, and I know other hon. members opposite and on this side hear from people who are desperately looking for work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Well, I do not know about the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but he is certainly not in this world. He is not in the Newfoundland world. There is something radically wrong.

The people who call daily, and into the evening, and on the weekends, are not calling to see how you are. They are not calling to wish you well. They are calling because they are desperately looking for work, anything at all to help them come over the top, anything at all to help them over the winter, anything at all to put some grub on their table.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you vote for or against Confederation?

MR. CAREEN: Against.

AN HON. MEMBER: Against Confederation? And you are up (inaudible) UIC.

MR. CAREEN: We are in this country now, and it should not always be an orphan's fight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: I will tell you what, Mr. Speaker, my people might have been anti-confederates, they wanted Newfoundland to be brought in by the front door and not dragged in by the back door like she was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that the Chair has made a ruling.

MR. CAREEN: Newfoundland was a self-governing dominion. She had every right as the rest of them and she should never have been dragged in by the back door. Now as long as we are part of this country it should not always have to be an orphan's fight for us at the table of Confederation to get what is ours. How about the people - an orphans fight at the table of Confederation. Yes, I was disappointed in Mulroney the day on the Atlantic Accord when he said he was not afraid to inflict prosperity in Newfoundland. I was insulted. We are a part of this country, anybody talking about inflicting prosperity on us when we had all the natural resources going into Confederation, we should have been in the richest province in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: They all did, sir, everyone of us and every way we voted it all messed up the whole works.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I was glad to be able to get up here today just to put forward a case for people I know, the ones that are desperate, the ones that are able to work, the ones that don't hide away from work, the ones that will take any kind of work and they are all under attack now, the housewife, the construction worker, the tourist, the fishermen. Temporary jobs are under attack, work is under attack and Newfoundland is under attack.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to rise in this debate today. I wanted this opportunity because I wanted to share some good news with the people of this House and to let the people know that not everybody out in this Province has been lying back and waiting for somebody to give them a cheque, not everybody in this Province is out there crying out and saying: I got to have so many weeks given to me because the federal government is there to do that and governments are there to do that so they qualify me for unemployment insurance. I want to tell them some good news about what is happening in a remote part of this Province along the Coast of Labrador. Today, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in our history we have a brand new state of the art fish processing facility operating full time, flat out, full production in L'Anse-au-Loup, Labrador in the Labrador Straits. The first time in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was talking to an individual in Charlottetown, Labrador, right in the middle of the Coast of Labrador, right in the middle, here we are the seventh day of November and that gentleman told me that there were still people in that harbour fishing scallops and have been for over twenty weeks this year. For the first time in our history we have been doing that. So, Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation along the Coast of Labrador because of the investments that we have made as one government and as the federal government have made in having new operations in the Labrador Straits, having a new crab plant in Cartwright, a modernized and upgraded crab plant in St. Lewis and one in Mary's Harbour, Labrador. We now have greater security in those communities then we have ever had in our history and that is something to get up and boast about and be happy about.

Three years ago I had a call from the community of Cartwright. There were 115 people in that community, 115 people out of a population of some 700 that did not have enough weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. Now to me that was a very, very critical situation, an unacceptable situation and one that I know the people there did not want to tolerate. So we said we were going to try and develop a crab fishery off the coast of that community and millions of dollars may have been necessary but we did take a look at what we could do.

I know the CBC went in there and did a story where they had people chained on to a building because they said there was no hope for them and that everybody had given up on them. At the time I remember the CBC reporter saying: Yes, there is a dream, there is somebody talking about a crab processing plant in this community.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is only interrupting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he call a quorum?

AN HON. MEMBER: He called a quorum.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a quorum; there are lots of people here. What's wrong?

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Quorum

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I call for the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

MR. SPEAKER: Question.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, sure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is recognized to close debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is standing.

This is not a place to provide colour commentary. I've recognized the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to close the debate.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: I was never recognized by Your Honour.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes he was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you were, right away.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: I was never recognized by the Speaker. I was recognized by the government but I was never recognized by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite don't want to participate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking on a point of order!

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

The Chair can't determine whether it is a point of order until I've heard the case. I wish hon. members to be silent, please.

MR. TOBIN: It is my point of order, Mr. Speaker, that if the members opposite don't want to participate in this debate, if the Government Whip doesn't want to keep a quorum in the House for his speakers, then we are prepared to clue up the debate on it. No doubt about that, if they don't want to do that. If they want to do it let us know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: The hon. member was recognized. He has fifteen minutes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recalls recognizing the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to close the debate. The Chair will recess for a few minutes to check the tapes of Hansard and will come back and make a ruling.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, or the Table has checked the tapes of Hansard and clearly what happened was that the hon. Member for Eagle River was speaking, he sat and the question was called for, and the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West rose and the Chair did say that the hon. member, if he speaks now, closes the debate, so I recognize the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to close the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to prolong this because I don't want to debate this. You said: if the hon. member speaks, he closes the debate. I called for a point of order, I didn't speak in the debate, I called for a point of order, when you said that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the Speaker's ruling and (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and so he should because that's what happened.

MR. TOBIN: That's what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The tapes indicate what the Chair just ruled, so -

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Speaker, no problem.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There was a Speaker challenged in the country the last few days, you know there could be another one.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have twenty minutes to clue up the debate and that's fine.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the onus is on this government to keep a quorum in the House. The onus, Mr. Speaker, called for a quorum; he rang the bells because there was not a quorum in the House. This government, Mr. Speaker, is responsible to maintain a quorum in this House at all times. There was not a quorum in the House. Your Honour, knows full well that there was not a quorum in this House; he rang the bells to call in the members. Your Honour rang the bells to call in the members and the members came in; and I don't know if Your Honour ever made reference to the fact that there was a quorum present after. I don't even know if that was said, I would say to hon. members, I am not even sure if that was said.

But if this government, Mr. Speaker, wants to run and hide, wants to adjourn the House, refuses to debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, there is no running and hiding. There were twelve hon. members sitting on this side of the House listening to the Opposition motion for today. Let Hansard show that there was one speaker, one member on the other side sitting there, thirteen people sitting in the House; one sitting to listen to their motion -

AN HON. MEMBER: Their motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Their motion - twelve on this side and all hon. members very close to the House.

Now, whether or not - and to call, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would say to the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island - there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: The fact of the matter is, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island doesn't want to debate this in the House, doesn't want to stand up, Mr. Speaker, and become part of the debate, wants to run away, doesn't want to keep a quorum in the House, hide from his constituents, let them do it, Mr. Speaker, let them do it. If the members opposite don't want to support this, we will know what is going to happen when they call Division, we will know what's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know, he is here in this House long enough, that it is up to the government to maintain a quorum in the House and not the Opposition, and the government didn't do it. That's why the Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't have to have a quorum.

MR. TOBIN: I don't have to have a quorum, I am not the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I didn't. No, no, I didn't.

We will, Mr. Speaker, in another fifteen minutes, stand in this House and have a vote as to whether or not we want an emergency employment program in this Province or whether we don't. All members will have an opportunity to stand in their places and tell their constituents whether they want to have an employment emergency program in this Province or whether they do not, Mr. Speaker. That's what is going to take place in a few minutes and I hope the members will have an opportunity to stand and say what's going to happen. I hope the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island will stand and let us know whether he supports an employment program for the people of his district, or whether he does not.

It is too bad the Member for Eagle River did not get to bring in his amendment, I say to members opposite, and bail them out from voting against this resolution. That is what is going to happen. If the members opposite do not want an emergency program we are going to know in a matter of a few minutes, because there is a resolution that we are going to be voting on. This government has been silent, they have been intimidated, and they are prepared to sell out Newfoundland for the benefits of their cousins in Ottawa. That is what is going to happen.

MR. WOODFORD: Kissing cousins.

MR. TOBIN: Kissing cousins, yes.

All of this, I would submit, because the Premier is interested in something after politics. That is why we are in the situation we are in today. That is why the government does not want to debate a resolution. That is why the government fell down –

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is definitely misleading this House. He said that the members on this side did not want to debate this motion. The record will show that it was this member who was debating the motion, who got interrupted by the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and there was not one of his colleagues over there who wanted to talk about this motion. So let it be fair and square on his shoulders; you were the one who was playing partisan political games with this particular serious issue, and not this side of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

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

The hon. Member for Eagle River cannot be permitted to say that the Member for Burin - Placentia West is deliberately misleading this House, which he said, and he must withdraw it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I never said it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You did say he was deliberately misleading the House, and you must withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Eagle River made an unparliamentary remark, I would ask him to withdraw it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I did not say deliberately misleading this House. I did not say it. Obviously if I did say that it would be unparliamentary and I would withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: Well, are you withdrawing it or not?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I did not say it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it takes a man to stand up and withdraw something.

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

MR. TOBIN: The bottom line is that the member can stand and try to chew my time all he likes. They refused to participate in this debate for fear that they may do something that would jeopardize their leader getting a job. That is the situation. Why is the minister and the Premier and other members over there not taking on the federal government for trying to cut the guts out of a social net within this Province? Why are they not bringing in funding for an emergency response program for the men and women of this Province who really need it? Why are they not doing that? Why the silence? Why not keep a quorum in the House to hear the Member for Eagle River participate in the debate, I would ask members opposite. That is what is going on here today. It is too bad Danny never got in his resolution. Tom, you are right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Eagle River that I recognized the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand the frustration of the Member for Eagle River when his colleagues walked out and refused to listen to him, did not maintain a quorum in the House. I can understand that, while he was left with seven members opposite for his debate. I can understand why Your Honour had to ring the bells to bring the crowd back. I can understand why he was so frustrated that he refused to stand and continue debating. Why should be stand when seven members opposite is what stayed to listen to him. I share his frustration. I know why he said to the Government House Leader: I am not speaking if you do not come in and listen to what I have to say, with this going on. That is what happened. I was in the House; I know exactly what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Don't you worry about my colour; worry about your own.

That is what happened in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, the whip is crowing now, eh?

Mr. Speaker, men and women in this Province are entitled to an employment emergency response program. Why should the people who have worked their entire lives, and worked hard, be forced to go to the social services office? Why? Why is the minister sitting idly by and allowing that to happen? Why is the minister not standing up and fighting for these people, Mr. Speaker? Why, I ask all members opposite. Because it is a Liberal government that is in office in Ottawa, it is a Liberal government that is going to bring Newfoundlanders to their knees. That is why we refuse to participate in the debate. That is why this government is not prepared to put up speakers. That is why.

I hope they are going to stand and support this resolution. I cannot see any men and women over there, regardless which district they are from, standing and voting against an emergency response program. I cannot in all sincerity see any men or women standing over there and voting against this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Deputy, deputy, deputy, deputy (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, deputy, deputy, deputy all you like. What about Harry, Harry, Harry, the dog you were going to kill if you didn't get in Cabinet? And drag the body to Tom Murphy's doorstep? What about that? If he got in and you didn't. So don't talk about deputy, deputy, talk about Harry, Harry.

We will see the courage that you have when you have to stand and vote on this resolution. We will see if you stand for the people of Newfoundland who don't have unemployment insurance, who don't qualify for UI because of cutbacks by this government. We will see if you will stand and support an emergency response program, I would say to members opposite. We will see if that is what this minister will do. We will have an opportunity over the next number of days to debate what is going to come down from Ottawa. We will see if this minister will finally stand up and defend the rights of the people of this Province. We will see what will happen.

I would like to say that I find it encouraging to know that there are more government members in the House listening to my speech than chose to listen to their own party representative when he spoke. I would like to recognize that and put it on the record. Over twice as many chose to sit in this House and listen to my speech as the seven who chose to listen to the Member for Eagle River. That is what has happened. When the Speaker had to ring the bells and call in the members. When the Member for Eagle River got mad and refused to continue to speak because his colleagues wouldn't support him, and the Government House Leader said: We will have to call the question. We will see what will take place when they have to vote on this bill in a few minutes.

I would say to all hon. members, I would say to the Members for Trinity North and Fortune - Hermitage. I would say to the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, (inaudible) I called this past week relating to employment program. I wonder if he will stand and support this. We will see what will happen. The Member for Harbour Grace, we will see if he will stand and support this resolution, or if he will say no to an employment program in this Province. All of that will take place and all of that will happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The minister, Mr. Speaker, should be standing up to Ottawa. He should be taking on Lloyd Axworthy. He should be doing what George Baker is doing in standing up and fighting for Newfoundlanders, and defending the rights of Newfoundlanders. That is what this minister should be doing. Why the silence, I ask the minister? Why is the minister silent? Why has the minister been silent in not standing up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Why haven't you said anything?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You don't, okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister, they didn't have much trouble standing up when John Crosbie was up there and criticizing everything he did. They didn't have any difficulty attacking the Mulroney government every opportunity they got. Why the change of heart? You were up tearing the life out of Crosbie every opportunity you had so why is it now, `Yes, Lloyd,' `Yes, Lloyd?' Why is that happening, Mr. Speaker? Why was the Member for Eagle River, when he was standing up in this House day-in-and-day-out, attacking John Crosbie, when Crosbie had to take him on at a meeting? He said one word to him and he never spoke for the rest of the day.

MR. WOODFORD: Look at 1989.

MR. TOBIN: We all know about that, too, in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. Why did that take place?

AN HON. MEMBER: We got rid of Crosbie. We threw him out, didn't we?

MR. TOBIN: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: We will get rid of you next time.

MR. TOBIN: Probably you will. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker, but you will never get rid of me for the reasons that they should get rid of you, for betraying the people who elected me. They will never get rid of me for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The will never get rid of me for standing up and voting against the wishes of my constituents. They will never get rid of me for cuddling up to a Premier and selling out the people who are unemployed in this Province. They will never get rid of me for that, and they will never get rid of me for threatening to kill the Premier's dog, I say to the member opposite.

I don't know why government members don't want to get involved in this discussion. I don't know why they don't want to participate in the debate. I don't know why they didn't let the Member for Eagle River bring in his resolution.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They know the word from Ottawa but they are not telling us. They feel so ashamed they won't participate.

MR. TOBIN: That's the truth. Sure, they know the word from Ottawa. Why does George Baker know it and they don't know it?

AN HON. MEMBER: They have no shame.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, can you muzzle that from over here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question.

All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tobin -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has called the question and I expect silence while we are dealing with this vote.

CLERK: Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tobin, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. Manning, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Careen, Mr. Mackey, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the resolution please rise.

CLERK (Mr. J. Noel): The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, the hon. the Minister of Environment, Mr. Carter, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, Mr. Lush, Mr. Barrett, Dr. Kitchen, Mr. Dumaresque, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, Ms Cowan, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Crane, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vey.

Mr. Speaker, sixteen `ayes' and twenty-three `nays'.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there are no other resolutions in the name of private members on the Order Paper. I assume the House would just as soon not do government business, but I must say to my learned friend, the Member for St. John's East, he missed his chance for immortality to have his resolution -

Your Honour, I will move the adjourn in a second.

MR. DECKER: Do you say that with respect?

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Minister of Education and Training, that when I call my hon. friend, the Member for St. John's East, `learned', I do so with the greatest respect - all the respect he merits.

Your Honour, tomorrow we shall ask the House to deal first with - I am referring to today's Order Paper - Order 11, which is Bill No. 7, that is the adjourned debate on the subordinate legislation amendment, and I believe my friend, the Member for St. John's East Extern adjourned the debate, if I read the Hansard correctly, `Byrne Primus' as opposed to `Byrne Secundus'.

If we should get through that bill, we will then go on to Order 20, which is Bill No. 27; that is the adjourned debate on the Waste Material Disposal Act. The Member for Humber Valley adjourned that debate and he was getting, I think, to the meat of his remarks. He had two or three minutes left to speak and was going to get to the point. Then, should we be so fortunate as to get through that, we will deal with Order 19, Bill 28, which is the Credit Union Consolidation Act. Should we get through that I will first of all light four candles and then have a word with my friend, the Member for Grand Bank as to where we go from there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the Tobacco Control Act is on the Order Paper and will be coming on. Perhaps we could do that tomorrow. My friend, the Minister of Health, has his speaking notes ready and, at the least provocation, would launch himself into the fray and see if he could set the House alight, as it were.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend, the Member for Grand Bank is familiar with both.

Your Honour, the government will be asking the House to sit late tomorrow evening. We shall not sit beyond 7:00 p.m., and if there is no Late Show we shall not sit beyond 6:30 p.m. Then, when we adjourn - I am sorry, my friend -

AN HON. MEMBER: Electoral Boundaries - when will we bring that in?

MR. ROBERTS: Electoral boundaries? Soon enough, I say to my friend. He should possess his soul in patience, as his grandmother no doubt told him, and look where it got him.

Mr. Speaker, we will ask the House not to sit beyond 6:30 p.m. tomorrow. The House will not sit on Friday or on Monday. What did my friend -

MR. FUREY: Do you still phone your mother and congratulate her on your birthday?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I don't, but I can assure the House it is not correct that my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West is retroactively seeking to amend his birth certificate by cancelling it.

Your Honour, with that said, I will move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.