May 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 44

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's gallery today The High Commissioner of Zambia to Canada, His

Excellency Kebby Musokotwane, and Mrs. Musokotwane.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also on behalf of hon. Members I would like

to welcome to the public galleries sixty Grade V11 students from Fred Kirby

Junior High School, Foxtrap, accompanied by their teachers Annette King, and

Mrs. Kennedy, and Mrs. Papadaplus, a student teacher originally from Greece now

studying at Memorial University.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to this hon. House on the

insect pest situation in the forests of Newfoundland and Labrador, and my

Department's plan for 1991.

Mr. Speaker, my Department has completed its analysis of the

major forest pests forecasts for the 1991/92 season which was supplied by

Forestry Canada earlier this year. This analysis indicates that the major

defoliators, that is, hemlock looper and spruce budworm, will be at their lowest

population levels in fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: I will deal first with the hemlock looper,

which is essentially a pest of fir in Newfoundland.

The forecast for hemlock looper predicts that 19,100 hectares

will be infested and of that only 8,000 hectares will be in the moderate and

severe category. The majority of this area is on the east side of the Northern

Peninsula near Salmon River, Main Brook and north towards Hare Bay. There are

pockets of high counts in these areas but a detailed analysis shows they are

scattered in mature stands and a lot of the infested area is of questionable

commercial value. The population is at the extreme end of its northern range and

is expected to continue to decline due to increasing incidence of parasites and

diseases.

Mr. Speaker, now coming to the spruce budworm, the population

levels of this insect have been low since the mid-eighties. However, samples

show that the insect is widespread over most areas where previous outbreaks have

occurred. This may be an indicator of a possible population increase now that

its competitor defoliator the hemlock looper is in sharp decline.

According to the forecast, some 33,000 hectares will have

spruce budworm populations but only 5,800 hectares could be considered moderate

and severe. The Department carried out follow-up surveys in most of the

silviculturally treated areas and other areas where severe populations were

indicated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: These additional samples show budworm

populations in the surrounding forest to be very light to traces. Therefore,

spruce budworm is of little concern for 1991-92. Nevertheless, since the light

populations are extensive in the Province, they will be monitored closely for

possible increases in the future.

Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration of the forecast

information for hemlock looper and spruce budworm, my Department feels it will

not be necessary to carry out a major spray program against either insect during

1991-92.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first year since 1977, that we are

not planning an aerial spray program against either the hemlock looper or the

spruce budworm.

If, after more detailed surveys, the situation warrants some

intervention, the Department will maintain the necessary capability to deal with

the situation.

The Department has, therefore, submitted a licence

application to the Department of Environment and Lands as a precautionary

measure to cover the possibility that events do not come out as predicted. Any

intervention based on this licence would probably involve local use of

helicopters to suppress hot pockets or small infestations not covered in our

forecast. No major aerial program is anticipated in 1991-92.

The population decline of hemlock looper and the continued

low level of spruce budworm is a credit to the Government's commitment to

protect our forests using the most environmentally acceptable yet economic

methods of intervention. B.T. appears to have worked, particularly on declining

populations of both insects. There are outstanding questions about its

effectiveness on rising populations. These questions are being worked on in

Eastern Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the low population levels of major defoliators

in indeed very good news. We cannot afford to lose timber to insects or fires.

Government and industry share a reprieve from the financial burden of a major

protection program, although we will still have the costs of surveys and

monitoring. Our silviculture investments also benefit, since we do not have to

treat these areas in the short term to maintain their growth and vigor. With a

continuation of this kind of help from nature we can be more optimistic about

the future of our forests.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this hon. House will understand I

am sure, that I get a great deal of personal satisfaction out of this

announcement. This House will recall that it was this Government, and it was

this Minister, that in 1989 discontinued the use of the chemical spray,

fenitrothion in our forests and went to B.T.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: You will recall, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I was

severely criticized at that time; even the hon. Leader of the Opposition got

into the act; I was accused of playing Russian roulette by the hon. Member for

Grand Falls, with our forests.

Well, I take great pride and satisfaction from the fact that

our decision, Mr. Speaker, was correct, that our programme has been successful,

and that for this season, and hopefully into the future, we will not require any

major aerial spray programme.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to first of

all, thank the Minister for giving me a copy of his statement and I think it is

obvious from the statement that the new PR group must have written the

statement. But anyway, this is not a matter to be taken lightly, Mr. Speaker, it

is a very serious matter, there is no doubt about that; when you are talking

about the forests in our Province that so many of our people and our economy

depend on.

But having said that, the Minister dwells a lot on the fact

that there is no spray programme this year and that is great, that is great, if

everything is alright, but when I look at last year's figures pertaining to -

and I noticed last year we had the looper -the main culprits were the looper and

the black-headed budworm.

Now we have the looper and just the spruce budworm, I do not

know if there is a bald-headed one or not, but there is no other one, like

probably a few here, but anyway, Mr. Speaker, the infestations last year, 27,000

approximately hectares last year of hemlock looper, in the moderate or severe

category and this year we have 19,000 hectares of the looper in a moderate and

severe, out of which 8,000 or 9,000 is in a moderate and severe category, so to

me it is just as important this year to have that particular problem addressed

as it was last year to have the looper and the black-headed budworm addressed

but anyway the question there with regards to the stands being commercially

viable and being accessible, I guess. And the Minister goes on then to talk

about the moderate and severe categories in the spruce budworm.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some 5800 hectares considered

moderate and severe in this category out of 33,000 hectares of spruce budworm

populations. Now the question I ask is what about the rest? Where do we address

and when do we start addressing moderate and severe categories because where

there is any infestation of budworm, hemlock looper, or the black-headed

budworm, as far as I am concerned, there is a problem - there is a problem.

Now the other question the Minister mentioned, the department

has therefore submitted a license application just in case they would have to

spray using helicopters and so on to put out so called fires in the district.

The other question I would like to ask the Minister is this:

Will they be doing any herbicide spraying this year like they did on hardwoods,

like they did with birch last year in the Green Bay area of the Province, if I

am not mistaken. They did some herbicide spraying. Maybe the Minister could

address that at another time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about the declining

populations of both insects and their outstanding questions about its

effectiveness on rising populations. Now, Mr. Speaker, if there was any one

paragraph in this statement that you would have to be concerned about - we got

no concern. We should not have any concern about the declining populations, it

is the rising populations that we should have concerns about. We could probably

give the declining populations a good shot of raid and it might do the job, but

when you have rising populations of this infestation in the hemlock looper or

the spruce budworm, then I think there is reason for concern.

Having said that, I think it is good that we do not have to

have a spray program, it is excellent. Furthermore, it is a lot better if we do

have one, we have not got to use fenitrothion. That is good for everybody

concerned, nature, the industry and what have you, but the Minister also says

here that we need a lot of help from mother nature. Well then I guarantee you

with the cutbacks and everything else, I hope that this administration is not

depending on mother nature to look after the spruce budworm and the hemlock

looper in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the jury is still out as far

as I am concerned. It is good to see, but the jury is still out on the Bt on the

forests of the Province in the last couple of years. This did not just happen in

1989. This started back years ago and now we are finally seeing something come

to fruition with regards to the spraying of those programmes. It did not just

happen in two years. If this mess is cleaned up then everybody in this Province

would commend no matter who was responsible and I suggest to the Minister that

previous administrations in this case had to start somewhere. This is just the

end of it and he can take the credit for it. But regardless of the credit, it is

good to see that this problem is being addressed and that we do not have a

serious infestation of the budworm in this Province.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

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

the Minister of Mines and Energy. Can the Minister tell the House precisely what

commitments the Hibernia consortium has given to the Province with respect to

employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on the Hibernia

project? Could he give us the precise commitment he has received from the

consortium?

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

DR. GIBBONS: From memory, Mr. Speaker, no, I am not able

to give the precise commitments. I can take it under advisement and report.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker? I wonder could the

Minister give us a hint? What have the companies, the consortium, told the

Government it would try to do with respect to employment for Newfoundlanders on

the project? What is the general -?

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

DR. GIBBONS: In general, Mr. Speaker, during the

development phase of Hibernia we expect about 10,000 person years of employment

- during the development phase. That is the next five years or so until tow-out

in 1995 and then the first production in 1996. So that is going to be about

2,000 - what is it - about 1,600 person years per year, 10,000 divided by five

and a half years. And after production starts there would be about 1,100 persons

per year employed on the project. Of these after production starts most of them

should also be Newfoundlanders. Of the 10,000 person years between now and 1996

these would be primarily Newfoundlanders. These are jobs in Newfoundland - in

this area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister

tell us then what process he has put in place to ensure that the consortium, its

project manager, contractors, sub-contractors, are complying with that general

commitment, then? What process has been put in place by his Department to ensure

that that is happening?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Most of the details of that, Mr. Speaker,

would be handled through my colleague the Minister responsible for Employment

and Labour Relations, but the key thing that is in place relative to the project

at Bull Arm is the special site agreement whereby fourteen unions in the oil

field development council are going to be really the agents for the hiring of

the people who are going to work at the site in Bull Arm.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: On the advice and suggestion of the Minister

of Mines and Energy I will put the same question to the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations. Can she tell us what process is in place to ensure that

the consortium is fulfilling its commitment with respect to employment for

Newfoundlanders on the project? What is the commitment? Does she know?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you, very much. There

is liaison with my Department and with the Hibernia group. I receive updatings

every two or three weeks on just what is taking place and I will be quite happy

to table those in the House. The one I have here today I have written all over

it but I could bring a fresh one in tomorrow and have it tabled, and then I

would certainly have no objections to just automatically making it available to

everyone through their internal mail once the House is closed, if that would be

of assistance to you.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that would be of assistance. We

would appreciate any information we can get on this side of the House. May I ask

her also, while she is checking into that, would she please investigate

allegations passed on to our office in the last few days that recently there

have been two nurses hired for the project site, both from outside the Province,

and as we understand it, as the allegation says at least, without advertising in

this Province at a time when almost 150 nurses are being laid off? Would she

investigate that particular matter and report back to the House as well?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I will certainly look into that. If it is

correct it is not desirable, so I will look into that promptly.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister, the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Would she also agree to provide the

House, at least while the House is sitting, and the public of the Province after

the House closes, with regular and detailed reports about the employment and

procurement benefits coming to Newfoundlanders and to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? Would she do that on a regular basis when the House

is sitting, through a Ministerial Statement or something of that nature, and

after the House closes on a regular basis as well?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I would certainly be glad to, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Now, that it

has been confirmed that the proposed shrimp operation for the National Sea

Southside plant seems to be off the rails, I wonder if the Minister could inform

the Legislature whether or not the Province has been involved in this proposal,

and if so to what extent? Is there any hope now for those displaced workers who

were hoping to be accommodated with the shrimp operation?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I understand that negotiations

are still ongoing between the company, and others, with a view to getting the

operation up and going, so for that reason I do not want to comment at length at

this time because I understand these negotiations are very delicate and I would

not want to be responsible for doing or saying anything that might interfere

with what the company is trying to do.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am sure

the Minister is aware that National Sea Products have been looking for a partner

to get involved in this operation. Could the Minister inform the House why a

company such as National Sea Products would even have to look for a partner and

why it would take so long for them to find one? Could he inform the House as to

why that might be because I am sure we are all interested in knowing the answer

to that question. Personally it baffles me that a company of that magnitude and

reputation would find it, first of all, necessary to seek a partner and why it

would take so long to get one?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for National Sea.

But I can only assume the fact that they are looking for a partner would

indicate that for whatever reason, they need a partner, and maybe the type of

investment that the partner can bring with him. But again I cannot comment on it

at any length this afternoon because from what I am told, and we have had

discussions with highly placed officials in National Sea, that the deal is

certainly not off, there is still a good chance that they will be able, maybe,

to attract the kind of a partner they are looking for. And, in fact, my deputy

minister is meeting with one of the vice-presidents of that company I believe

either this afternoon or tomorrow morning. And for that reason I would just as

soon not have too much to say about it until after they have had a chance to

meet and maybe get a better idea as to what the problem is.

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

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

the Minister for that answer, and I hope the thing works out for those people

who are looking forward to being employed at the Southside in the shrimp

operation.

Could the Minister inform the House as to what the outlook is

for Blue Ocean Products of Argentia. I have heard reports that there are some

problems being encountered there as well; that the future is quite not certain.

Could the Minister inform the House whether or not Blue Ocean Products will

operate this year as it has operated over the past year or so or is there any

difficulty being experienced there?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, there are some problems,

but I would again prefer to get a full updating on that matter from my officials

and maybe tomorrow bring back a full report to the hon. Member as to the status

of that company and their chances of operating this year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, and it concerns the accident at Bull Arm on

Thursday past. The President of Nodeco, Mr. Fraser Edison, is quoted in the

newspaper as saying there was an investigation and the necessary people were

informed of the incident. I wonder could the Minister advise the House whether

those necessary people included the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations, and in particular the Occupational Health and Safety Division? And if

so, when was that report made?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Yes, I have for the House a report given to me

by the Occupational Health and Safety, Assistant Deputy Minister in my

Department, which I will table, which gives the details of the accident

including reporting meetings and what have you. They were late in reporting.

There is some dispute as to whether the legislation required them to report this

incident. However, we have asked, by phone, yesterday and we will be following

this up, in writing, that every single incident that takes place at Bull Arm

will be reported to us even as minor as if there is blasting and a rock bounces

and hits a car window but does not shatter it or damage anybody or anything. But

we will be getting every report from Bull Arm so that we can be keeping our eye

on it. So I will table this information and hope that it will be of assistance

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

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

comments of Mr. Edison, he says: if we are going to report every scratch that

goes on at the site there is going to be a lot of work for the media. In view of

the wording of

Section 52 of the Act which indicates not only serious injury,

but any accident that has reasonable potential of causing serious injury or

death of a person are reportable accidents. Does the Minister have any concern

about the seriousness with which Nodeco may be taking these accidents and

reporting of accidents, in view of that comment, and the specific wording of the

legislation?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I do not, Mr. Speaker, again as I said the

incident where the man fell from the ladder was open to question as to whether

or not it needed to be reported, however, because of the importance of Hibernia

to the Province and the fact that we do not want misinformation and so on being

used to scuttle the project, I have asked that all incidents that take place at

the site be reported to the Department immediately.

I would also like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to invite the

Member for St. John's East to my office, at his convenience, for a complete

briefing on the safety procedures that are being put in place for the Bull Arm

site.

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

MR. HARRIS: I thank the Minister for the invitation, but

I have to also raise the question that the Minister refers to a man falling from

a ladder. The President of Nodeco, on the radio yesterday, said that the ladder

was improperly attached and it has since been fixed. I have a question for the

Minister as to whether or not she is satisfied that adequate precautions are

being taken, if we wait until after an accident has happened to fix something

that is wrong, rather than taking preventive measures to prevent accidents from

happening in the first place.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the thing that

we have to note here that is most important was that the individual worker was

wearing his flotation device which is of extreme importance; that then is going

to work to keep people from serious injury or death, in cases where we cannot

always assume or guess or whatever, that an accident is going to happen. After

an accident has happened, it always sounds very simple to say: well, my

goodness, that ladder should have been put on there properly in the first place;

but if that thing has never happened before, and now, an unique situation occurs

with wave motion or whatever that causes that ladder to be unhinged, we cannot,

in fact always predict that. However, Nodeco has correctly now, made sure that

all those ladders are chained in a secure position to the barges and there

certainly will not be, as far as we can tell, a repeat of that particular

accident, unless of course, some other circumstances intervene.

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

a final supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I raise a final

supplementary because of the Minister's comments. Wave motion in a bay in

Newfoundland in the middle of the winter is hardly unpredictable activity and I

wonder, if the standard -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - if the standard of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - of Occupational Health and Safety is to

wait until after something happens to fix it, and if that is the standard, if

that is what is being applied, I am very concerned, and I want to go to the

Minister's Office and see what plans are in place and to ask the Minister

whether she is satisfied that a full and proper preventive programme is in place

in Bull Arm?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I can do. As a

teacher, I have now gone to the nth degree by inviting the individual to stay in

after school. I hesitate to be cavalier about anything that has to do with

occupational health and safety; but I also find this nitpicking day after day,

extremely irritating, is, I suppose as good a word as any, but there is some

sort of an implication there that somehow the company or we as a Department, are

not taking occupational health and safety seriously.

If this gentleman had done his research properly, Mr.

Speaker, he would realize that the Department of Employment and Labour Relations

is taking an approach to occupational health and safety in this Province, that

is unprecedented. In fact, I inherited a total and utter disaster and had he

come and listened in at the meeting the other night of my Estimates, he would

have been only too pleased -

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

MS. COWAN: - and proud and would have been standing in

this House, to commend me, not condemn me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I had indicated to the hon. Member that it was his last

supplementary, and I notice that for the last few days we have been getting into

a lot of supplementaries. Of course the Chair does not have much choice, when it

is the only Member standing, but to recognize an hon. Member, so, I will

recognize the hon. Member for St. John's, on a final supplementary this time.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Minister

regards -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister regards the

bringing to this House problems with safety at Bull Arm involving the death of

an individual and the potential death of an individual falling off a barge as

nitpicking, she does not know what her job is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognized the hon. Member for a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I want this Minister to assure

the House that, in addition to a safety programme in place on land, will she

assure the House that it is also in place, right now, a safety programme, with

which she is satisfied that looks after the barges and tug boats and the

activity on the sea at Bull Arm. Is she satisfied with the programme that is now

in place and is she satisfied with the reporting of that accident at Bull Arm?

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

I recognized the hon. Gentleman for a final supplementary and

not to get into the kind of thing he is in. Will the Minister respond please?

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I will assure the House, as the

best anyone can assure the House, that occupational health and safety measures

are put in place to ensure a safe work place. I cannot however rule out

unexpected events happening. I might add that I am only too delighted to answer

questions that relate to occupational health and safety. In fact I have been

waiting for them for two years. However, the comments that I was making were

addressed to the nature of the occupational health and safety questions that

suggest to me the gentleman is more interested in seeing a failure of Hibernia

then its advancement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, I am

not very tall but I was standing when the Member for St. John's East stood

before.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services. Now the

Minister told the Newfoundland and Labrador Homemakers and Homemakers' Services

Association on April 17 that the Department of Health was to be responsible for

home care programmes, and referred the Association to the Department of Health

for a decision on their request for a rate increase. Now this was a decision

that they had been waiting for since November. The Association then met with the

Department of Health on April 24 and were advised on April 29 that it was the

Department of Social Services which was responsible.

Now the question I want to ask the Minister: does he not

think that the Association is right when they feel that they have been getting

the runaround?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, the Association has not been

getting the runaround. In fact, since becoming the Minister of Social Services I

would take a guess - it will not be accurate probably, the exact number - but I

would say I have met with the Newfoundland Homemakers Association on at least

twelve to fifteen occasions for a number of issues that they have brought to my

attention. We have always worked very cooperatively together in solving the

problems that they had.

But in the case of the transition period from home care from

Social Services to Health, it is going to take about six or eight months. In

fact, I met with the Homemakers Association yesterday afternoon after 5:00,

after the House of Assembly closed, and they went away from that joint meeting

between Health and Social Services, and they were very happy after that meeting

yesterday afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: So the Minister is saying now that they will

be transferring to the Department of Health?

Mr. Speaker, the Association has made a very good case for

their rate increases, especially since the rates that are being paid now from

the Department of Social Services are less than the cost of providing the

service. Does the Minister not think that they are presently in an untenable

position? Will he ensure with his colleague from the Department of Health - and

I did not get from the Minister's answer whether it would be Health or Social

Services, but certainly the Cabinet or somebody will make this decision. Does he

not think that they should get this increase as quickly as possible?

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

MR. EFFORD: It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

Member sat in the government of the administration which brought in those same

rates and for seventeen years never sought to sit down with the Newfoundland

Homemakers Association and make any adjustment to the rates whatsoever. Seven

dollars and ninety cents an hour is the rate that was paid when the former

administration was there. They agreed upon those rates and they made no changes.

In fact, the Newfoundland Homemakers Association told me they could not get a

meeting at any time with the Minister of Social Services to discuss that. The

door was closed continuously.

We agree. There are problems with the amount of money being

paid to the Homemakers. We certainly - because of the rising costs - but other

than that there is a transition period which must take place -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Not a word of truth in what he is saying!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister to proceed with his

answer, please.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is going to take

about six or eight months for the transition period from Social Services to

Health. I explained that in the first part of my answer to the first question. I

guess the hon. Member could not hear that. But it is a transition period which

the Department of Health eventually will be taking over the total home care

package. It does not make any sense for two Departments to be administering the

one programme, and it is only logical that the Department of Health would assume

that responsibility and that decision has been made. And when the transition

period takes place it will be finalized and total operation will be the mandate

of the Department of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this association put in the

request to Government in November. Would the Minister not agree that is quite a

long time, and now he is talking about six or eight more months before the

transition period? Is the Minister aware that there have been 430 acute care

beds closed, and is he not aware that these people look after the people who

cannot get in those beds? Doesn't he think that this is an untenable situation

for this association?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services

is fully aware of everything that is happening within the Department of Social

Services. Last year we spent in excess of $11 million in home care. Probably the

need is to spend three times as much as that. I wish I had three times as much

money to spend in home care. If we did not have the responsibility of paying out

$485 million a year on interest caused by the former administration, we would

have a lot more money to put out in home care. Now that is the situation that we

are dealing with. If I only had one per cent of the $485 million, it would

answer all the problems that we have in home care in Health and Social Services.

So when we straighten out the finances of this Province, then we will be able to

listen to some of the unsensible comments of the Members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) say to the Minister of Social

Services, if the Province had the $750 million a year Hydro Quebec is making off

Churchill Falls power, he would have no trouble paying his interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this

question -

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

I just want to remind the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and

others because this is happening, when a Minister gets up to answer a question

he should not respond to a question that has been previously answered. The hon.

Member knows that his

preamble should relate to the question he is about to ask.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a

question in relation to a statement he made in this House on November 1, 1989,

and I quote, "the Government will not force amalgamation on towns that do not

want to amalgamate." He goes on to explain, Mr. Speaker, that he may well bring

such a decision before the House and let the House make a decision. He says, and

I quote, "I think it would be highly unlikely that it would ever come before the

House, but I could conceive of a circumstance where one particular town, or two,

may be doing something totally wrong, totally against the overall interest of

the Province. Then the House will decide".

In view of that statement, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier

confirm that this, indeed, is the position of the Province? Will he also confirm

that there are no matters which are totally wrong relating to the City of Mount

Pearl that would justify bringing that amalgamation issue before this House for

a decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not do what the

hon. Member asks. I will restate the Government's position, and it is about the

same as the hon. Member read out in his

preamble to the question. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, the Government had hoped that by this time a number of municipalities

would have seen the merits and benefit to the municipalities, as well as to the

Province as a whole, of amalgamation. And, Mr. Speaker, we had hoped that more

of them would have responded positively to the proposal to amalgamate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not relieve the Government of its

responsibility to address the issues properly. There are a variety of ways in

which the Government could do it: we can bring it before the House directly, we

could order it by a Cabinet order under the legislation as it exists at this

moment. Government would not do that, Mr. Speaker. If Government is going to act

to cause the amalgamation of municipalities in this Province, we believe, at the

very least, we should bring the issue before the House and let it be debated

fully so that the basis for the Government's action, or the basis for the

House's action should be known.

The other possibility, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that we

could hold a plebiscite in the area considered for amalgamation. That is a

possibility as well. Government has not made a final decision on it yet.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier did

confirm in this House yesterday that he would not consider holding a plebiscite

in the City of Mount Pearl before forcing them to be annexed by the City of St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier has again

told us that he would use his majority in this House to force such an issue

through, will he assure this House that if such a vote were to come before this

legislature, that it would, indeed, be a free vote in every sense of the word,

and that his backbenchers would, indeed, be free to vote in accordance with

their conscience, and would he assure the House that Government will make no

final decision before such a free vote is taken in this Chamber?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the Government will

decide how it wishes to proceed. And let me restate again that I did not say I

would not agree to a plebiscite in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Read Hansard.

PREMIER WELLS: I will tell the House again the position.

The Government will not agree to a separate plebiscite in Mount Pearl, a

separate plebiscite in Wedgewood Park, a separate plebiscite in St. John's. If

there is to be a plebiscite taken it will be a single plebiscite in the area to

be amalgamated. The decision will be made on that basis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, whether we proceed by way of bringing in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Let me repeat again, Mr. Speaker. Whether

the Government proceeds by way of bringing in a Government measure which would

require the support of Government Members of the House of Assembly or whether we

would proceed by way of a free vote, Government will decide. We have not yet

decided, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier like to

explain why his Minister of Municipal Affairs on April 15 of this year indicated

to the city council of the city of St. John's that indeed the supercity concept

would be and had been approved by Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I cannot answer for what the Minister did.

The Minister will have to say that for himself. But I do not believe that what

the hon. Member has just told this House is correct. I do not believe that the

Minister said any such thing for one simple reason, Mr. Speaker, it would not be

true if the Minister did say it. So I do not believe that what the hon. Member

just said to this House is accurate. I think it is totally inaccurate.

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

Humber East, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the

Premier on municipal amalgamation. The law, as the Premier should know, requires

that there be a feasibility study of a proposal to amalgamate municipalities.

The previous administrations interpreted that provision of The Municipalities

Act as meaning an independent study. Now in the case of the Government 's

current proposal to amalgamate Massey Drive, Corner Brook, and Mount Moriah in

the District the Premier represents, the Government appointed a two person

commission, the Minister's assistant deputy minister, Art Colbourne, and the

municipalities designate Hubert Harnett. Last night fourteen months after the

feasibility study hearing the Minister's staff delivered to the three

municipalities a report of one of the two commissioners, a report by the

assistant deputy minister. Now does the Premier accept that report as satisfying

the requirements of The Municipalities Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are several aspects to the

commentary in question by the hon. Member. The first is let me hasten to assure

the House and bring great comfort to the people of this Province: there are a

great many things the former Government did that this Government would never

ever think of doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

PREMIER WELLS: So the mere fact that the former

Government did something does not make it supportable or commendable, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is quite the opposite.

PREMIER WELLS: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what

the Minister delivered yesterday to the City of Corner Brook.

MS. VERGE: -and the Town of Mount Moriah.

PREMIER WELLS: -and the Town of Mount Moriah, but I will

take a look at it, and when I see what was delivered then I will comment on the

contents of it and what standard it meets.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, as required by

Section 3 of the

Mineral Act I am pleased to table the Report of Mineral Licenses and Mining

Leases issued for the period of April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991. I will not go

into the details. I will leave that for hon. Members to peruse themselves but I

will note the number of claims staked during that one year period was 10,446 and

the total number of mineral claims in good standing at the end of the period was

42,504.

Notices of Motion

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting Land Surveyors In The Province," (Bill No. 29)

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I give on notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act."

Petitions

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

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

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 944 people,

residents of Labrador City and Wabush. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker,

is that we the concerned citizens group against the hospital cutbacks would like

to canvass your support against the cutbacks at the Captain William Jackman

Memorial Hospital by signing the petition to be presented to the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, 944 people signed this petition, and this is

undoubtedly now one of the largest petitions that I have had the opportunity of

presenting about cutbacks in Western Labrador. It does show the concern that

residents of Western Labrador have for the quality of health care that this

Government is delivering to Western Labrador, Mr. Speaker. This brings to a

total of well in excess of 2000 people who have signed petitions to ask this

Government to reconsider their drastic cutbacks to the Captain William Jackman

Memorial Hospital so that the local hospital board and the Salvation Army who

operate the hospital can continue to deliver the high quality of medical service

that has been delivered to Western Labrador over the last number of years, Mr.

Speaker. An $870,000 cutback, Mr. Speaker, this Government has brought about to

our local hospital in Western Labrador, a 12 per cent reduction this year, a

reduction that is going to lessen the quality of health care to a drastic degree

in Western Labrador, Mr. Speaker. At a time when our population is increasing in

numbers, increasing in age, at a time when the mines are going at higher

production levels, with greater potential for accidents, this Government has

seen fit to reduce the amount of money being send to the hospital. They have

also seen fit to not only have fourteen positions done away with at the

hospital, but to freeze the wages at the local hospital, Mr. Speaker, which

means that undoubtedly will lessen the moral of the workforce that is working at

the hospital. Not only will they have to work more, longer, and harder hours,

but they are going to be paid less and that is going to drastically reduce the

quality of health care in Western Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We are also very

concerned, not just with the cutbacks they have had to do so far and they have

announced, not just with the 40 per cent reduction in physiotherapy services

which results in about 3750 fewer patient physiotherapist visits, not only are

they concerned about that, they are also concerned about the future potential

cutbacks that the hospital board has suggested they may have to do. They are

talking about the combination of obstetrics and female surgery, Mr. Speaker, to

the medical floor. Mr. Speaker, several young women in Western Labrador have

offered their concerns to me about the amount of discomfort that is going to

ensure upon them when they are in hospital to have a child, and also, of course,

the people that will be on the medical floor, the surgical floor, while they are

in labour and delivering a child, Mr. Speaker. There are two potential problems

there. Mr. Speaker, that potential they may have to deal with in the very near

future. This hospital has provided a good level of services to the people of

Western Labrador for the last twenty-five or twenty-eight years and it is

unfortunate that at a time when this district is producing such tremendous

wealth to this Province, to provide all sorts of things for here on the Island

portion of the Province, while they see fit that they do not recognize the

geographic position of Labrador City, Mr. Speaker. The fact that it is eight

hours for an aircraft in turn around time to get out here. We do not have the

opportunity of driving for half an hour in an automobile, Mr. Speaker, to

facilitate going to another doctor. We only have the opportunity of using the

one that we have in our home town, Mr. Speaker, which also provides health care

for our neighbouring province of Quebec in the town of Fermont. Mr. Speaker, I

ask that the Minister reconsider and convince his colleagues in Cabinet to

reinstate the funding that has been cut from the Captain William Jackman

Memorial Hospital.

Thank you.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to spend a

couple of moments of the House's time in support of the petition so ably

presented by the Member for Menihek and to say that I suppose if we keep

bringing in petitions long enough and often enough, if we bring in enough names,

maybe when we finally get 560,000 or 570,000 names on a petition, then maybe

Members opposite - especially the Minister of Health - might listen to what is

really happening in the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Certainly in the case of the Member for Menihek who has done

an admirable job in trying to bring to the attention of the Minister and to the

Premier and Members opposite the concerns of people in Labrador. It has not

worked, or does not seem to have worked very well. The health cutback for this

year of $870,000 I presume is still in effect. I do not know if any of it has

been implemented yet. I suspect if Menihek was a little bit closer - if Lab

West, Wabush and Lab City were closer to St. John's, if we could bring 1,000

people up to the galleries, up to the House of Assembly to the steps, and have a

huge protest, then I suspect that some of the $870,000 would have been

reinstated for this year.

But because you are so far away you cannot voice the protest

that you would like to be able to voice and as such your voice is not heard and

certainly is not responded to. In the case of Menihek maybe that is one of the

reasons why it should be reinstated first, with or without a protest. People

have to realize that Labrador City - Wabush is not Placentia, it is not Port aux

Basques, it is not Trepassey, it is a very isolated region of Newfoundland which

goes through very harsh weather conditions, particularly in the winter time.

They are not close to other main centres of health care. They do not have

options of going across the street, they do not have options of driving to

another hospital when services are not available. They have to use only an air

ambulance service and that is simply not satisfactory, not acceptable, to the

people of Lab West.

I also want to say - as I said in presenting a petition here

the other day, or supporting the petition presented from Lab West - that the

people from Lab West are probably the hardest working, most independent group of

people in Newfoundland. They probably contribute more per capita to the

Newfoundland economy than any other given geographic sector in Newfoundland. The

tax rate paid by the people of Lab West, the fact that they contribute to the

Newfoundland economy in such a very substantial way - from our gross domestic

product to a high employment rate, probably one of the highest rates of earning

in a monthly or yearly basis of any part of Newfoundland, the taxes that they

pay - they should get back reasonable service for that. But it seems that this

Government ignores all of those things and says that this strange cutback that

they had this year is part of a health care plan instituted in 1989 when this

Government took office.

But like I asked the Minister of Health yesterday: if you do

have a plan, Minister of Health, how could you open more hospital beds last

year; how could you hire more nurses and nursing staff last year; how could you

increase the health care budget last year by 11.4 per cent and this year, one

year later, as part of the same plan, close hospital beds - 438 - lay off 900

health care workers, and in effect have a health care budget increase of 3.6 per

cent or 3.7 per cent?

Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense. It simply shows that

there is not a health care plan in this Province. All you have is an ad hoc

system in this Government of responding to the Minister of Finance's need to

control the deficit and his borrowing rate and to say that he has to do that

with the largest Departments, mainly Education and Health. I can only say in

conclusion that it is very unfortunate that the people of Lab West are stuck in

particular in this system, because they really do not have another option.

I cannot believe that some of the people in Lab West have not

joined the Province of Quebec or have not asked to join the Province of Quebec.

They could not get any less or worse service in the Province of Quebec than they

seem to get from this Government in many areas. I can only say that maybe

somewhere along the way when that happens in Lab West, when petitions are

circulated not just to improve health care in Labrador West but to take them out

of Newfoundland, to give them some reasonable services for the taxation they

pay, then maybe the Premier and the Ministers opposite might listen. But I

suspect they will not until it is much too late.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is probably a little

unusual. I have not presented a petition and it does not come from my district.

And it is not really in proper petition form but I would ask the leave of the

House. It is a petition that asks for assistance with a new water system for the

community and I am prepared to present it. It is the community of Westport.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: It's been lying on my desk for days.

PREMIER WELLS: Oh, okay, well I can - then maybe the hon.

Member would want to support it, would want to present it. And I will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) present it and I (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, I will - it is his district. Okay.

Then I think he should -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, this is what I was going to tell the

House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: He has the original, okay. Well, I have

written back to the people to tell them that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member should just let his blood

pressure simmer down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I was about to explain to the House that

it is a photocopy, but I was not aware that anybody else in the House had a copy

of it and I was not about to see the people deprived of an opportunity to be

heard without making an effort. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member has the

original I think he should present it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you very much (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: How childish and silly are you getting at all.

You are getting childish and silly.

MR. RIDEOUT: I arose to present the Petition, but the

Premier was recognized so obviously I sat down. Now, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SIMMS: Silly little game.

MR. RIDEOUT: - before I begin to present this petition

signed by over 400 residents of Westport, I have to inform the House that it is

not in the appropriate parliamentary form. The petition says that students and

parents of Westport would appreciate the development of a new water system due

to water contamination and high bacterial levels. Anyone in favour, please

signed. However, the letter of transmittal written to me as the Member for the

District says the following: Would you please present this petition to the House

of Assembly as soon as possible. So I would assume, Mr. Speaker, before I

proceed I would ask leave to present the petition.

MR. SIMMS: No need to ask, that is acceptable, isn't it?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) that they have characterized

it as a petition, and this is what I was about to say. I think it should be

presented to the House even though it is not in proper form.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay, Mr. Speaker, having cleared that

parliamentary hurdle, let me say this, that I am very pleased today to have the

opportunity to present this petition to the House of Assembly signed by around

400 residents of Westport. Now why is this petition here, Mr. Speaker, is the

next question. By the way, the petition should be addressed to the Department of

Health and the Department of Municipal Affairs. This matter first came to my

attention in January, that the water system serving the St. Peter's Academy in

Westport had been tested by officials of the Department of Health and found to

contain a bacterial count of 18 when the normal count is 10. So therefore, Mr.

Speaker, the public health officers informed the community and the school board

that the water source to the school had to be either boiled, as it should be in

every home in Westport, or some other measure taken.

Now obviously, Mr. Speaker, in a school of 100 or 110

students, it is not practical to have a boil order. How do you boil water for in

excess of 100 people? So what happened at the school was that the water

fountains in the school were shut down, so students in St. Peter's Academy in

Westport have had no access to drinking water in the school since January. Now

when that was brought to my attention, I immediately contacted the Department of

Health, I wrote the Minister in the first part of February when I had a letter

from the school about the matter, I wrote the Minister again in March and April.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, since this matter came to my attention I have been

corresponding on a regular basis with the Minister of Health asking that his

department do everything in its power to have this matter corrected. The

Minister went to the school board, the school board threw it back to the

Government, the school board said: we do not have the funds to be able to do

anything to improve this situation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the matter is very, very serious. We have a

situation where a school in 1991 in this Province does not have access to

drinking water. It is bad enough that the community does not have access to a

good source of drinking water. It has a small community system that needs to be

chlorinated. In fact, the system was put in several years ago, many, many years

ago and probably in all likelihood should be replaced. There was, a year or so

before we left the Government, a request from Westport to have a new system

installed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I commend this petition to the Minister of Health

and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If there is any such thing as a

community getting to the top of a priority list, certainly the fact a school

cannot be serviced with adequate drinking water ought to be a significant factor

in a decision of that matter.

Mr. Speaker, the petition has been sent to me. At the first

opportunity I have presented it to the House. I have never failed to present a

petition to this House in the sixteen years I have been here, and I will never

fail to present one in the time, if I am here or happen to be here, for another

sixteen years. What is incumbent now is for the Government - since it was the

Government's officials through the Department of Health who rightly authorised

or ordered the school board and the community to take this matter in hand - to

assist the community and the school board in correcting the matter as quickly as

possible.

So I would ask that the petition be tabled and be referred to

the Departments - because it relates to two Departments, the Departments of

Health and Municipal Affairs - and ask the Ministers of those Departments to

give this matter their urgent attention and hopefully some corrective action can

be taken.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to spend

just a couple of minutes and support the petition because it is very indicative

of what is happening in many parts of rural Newfoundland. The 400 residents in

Westport who are anxious to get an adequate, healthy water system so that their

children can have decent water in the schools and they can have decent water in

their homes, is one of the most common complaints in rural Newfoundland.

I suspect that an awful lot of those common complaints are

going to continue to exist in Newfoundland for a long time to come. We have not

seen from this Government any real concern about water and sewer in rural

Newfoundland. We have seen them change around the grant system in municipal

affairs which will prevent an awful lot of small communities from getting access

to an adequate water supply system, making it more difficult, transferring more

of the cost of those systems to small communities that cannot afford those kinds

of costs away from the Provincial Government.

I can only say that in Westport, which is indicative of many

communities in Newfoundland, where you depend so much on those kind of services

to be able to reside and exist in rural Newfoundland, that it is another simple

form, I suppose, of the resettlement image. (Inaudible) reduce service bad

enough I suppose people will ultimately move away or move someplace else. In the

case of Westport, how are the children expected to get a decent education if you

cannot even have a decent water supply to the schools? It is as I say a very

unfortunate situation. I would hope that the timing of this petition, the

presentation of it now before the water and sewer grants are announced for this

year, before the work is actually to be done will be announced, that maybe this

year you might be able to get a few water and sewer projects in PC districts of

Newfoundland and Labrador, which certainly has not been the case in the last few

years. It seems that this Government is much more interested in pork barrelling

its own ridings to make sure Liberal Members are re-elected than they are in

giving services in cases where there are emergency needs in the case of

Westport.

It will be very interesting to see, Mr. Speaker, if this

petition will have any affect on the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on his

Cabinet colleagues, to see if they will actually respond to a health care

problem as well as an education problem, to give some adequate water supply to

the community of Westport. I suspect that an awful lot of the water and sewer

projects this year will be done this year exactly as they were done last year,

exactly as the paving and road projects were done this year and were done last

year. And that is that the vast majority of it will go to Liberal ridings in

Newfoundland with no concern for health or the real needs of the people in many

parts of rural Newfoundland.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak

in support of this petition for a couple of moments. I would like to point out

again that on April 19 this letter was written to the hon. the Premier, and:

enclosed you will find a petition of approximately 400 signatures from citizens

of Westport concerning the water supply or lack of it here in town. Would you

please present this petition in the House of Assembly as soon as possible?

PREMIER WELLS: I got it on April 24.

MR. BAKER: There was no attempt to upstage anybody. It

was simply a petition that was sent to the Premier asking him -

PREMIER WELLS: I had no idea (Inaudible). I did not

(Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Absolutely, asking him to present it in the

House and that is simply all that is to it. Mr. Speaker, it is signed by a

student of the school in question. I have no problem supporting the request of

the students to have an adequate and proper water supply in the community and in

the school. We will take it into consideration when we consider the next round

of municipal works that will go on in the Province and we will consider this

along with some other requests.

There are a lot of requests in this Province. There are a lot

of demands in the Province in terms of water supply. There are

areas of the Province that have a tremendous problem with

water supply, and we will try and correct these problems as quickly as we can.

This one will certainly be taken into consideration along with everything else

when we consider the next series of municipal works in the Province.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to ask leave to

introduce a Bill, "An Act Respecting The Office Of The High Sheriff of

Newfoundland." (Bill No. 27)

On motion, Bill No. 27 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5.

Motion, the hon. the Premier to ask leave to introduce a

Bill, "An Act To Amend The Intergovernmental Affairs Act, 1975." (Bill No. 28)

On motion, Bill No. 28 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to, first of all, get something straightened out,

just a minor point. In terms of the Estimates that are done in the House I think

it is normal to include the Consolidated Fund Services with the Executive

Council. Is that correct? I just want to remind Members that we also can discuss

the Consolidated Fund Services which are contained right in the beginning of the

Estimates, a few pages, and that we will consider we are dealing with this as

well as the Executive Council.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, of course, that has been the practice. We

have done Consolidated Fund, but it does not require any particular notice by

the Government House Leader that we can also discuss Consolidated Fund Services

- we can discuss anything. That was determined yesterday pretty well within the

realm of reason and unless the Chair thinks we are out of order, which he has

not up until now, I do not expect he will up to now. We might even reintroduce

the amalgamation issue again this afternoon for some discussion. We are thinking

seriously about having a few words to say on that issue, in the hope that we

will be able to get some Members to rise. The Member for St. John's East is

representing Wedgewood Park, which is a major player in this issue, wants to

have a few words. Members opposite representing St. John's seats might want to

have a few words. Members on this side, St. John's East Extern and then St.

John's East might want to have a few words, the Member for Kilbride, even the

Member for Grand Falls might have a few words on amalgamation. So we can talk

about anything. Consolidated Fund Services is fine, if anybody wants to talk -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Absolutely. Always. So if anybody wants to

talk about Consolidated Fund Services, I agree with the Government House Leader

they are more than welcome to do so. No problem.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few

words to say about the Estimates from the Executive Council. And since it was

pointed out yesterday that the Executive Council sort of rules the roost, a part

of every Department, in a tangible way really, because they are the people who

really look after the finances, in an overall way. Mr. Chairman, I for the life

of me cannot see 35 per cent raises in three years when other situations

happening all over the Province are so detrimental health-wise, education-wise,

and now, Mr. Chairman, my few words today will be directed towards amalgamation.

I think that everyone today, anyone who listened to any media reports certainly

there was a great outcry from some areas of the Northeast Avalon as it pertained

to recommendations that had already been presented to Cabinet by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. The radio news media today told the people of St. John's

Avalon North that the Government had three options and one of them was this

conceptual idea of a great big large city, in other words a supercity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell this hon. House that last year I

presented a petition from the residents of Wedgewood Park and I believe it was

99.9 per cent of the people from Wedgewood Park signed that petition. They

signed the petition that they did not want to become part of St. John's and

would rather stay as they are. They are a viable entity in themselves, and they

should be left to do the thing that they do best, govern themselves in a very

fine manner, enthusiastically. And I hear today from one of my colleagues, the

hon. the Minister of Finance attending a gathering at Wedgewood Park and he was

very, very positive and, in fact, he referred to an idea that he had at one

time, Mr. Chairman, that he perhaps thought that Wedgewood Park should be part

of St. John's. But after the reception, after being to Wedgewood Park and after

being briefed on their achievements over the years, he said, he had second

thoughts.

So when the Premier says that, and I cannot quote him

verbatim, but certainly he said that amalgamation would not be imposed on people

and would not be forced on people. Then I have to say to the Premier that I

think that if it is brought to the floor of the House, if amalgamation is

brought to the floor of the House then I think that the House will reject it. I

feel that there are enough Members, backbenchers, Cabinet Ministers, like the

Minister of Finance, who have second thoughts about this supercity.

But going back to Wedgewood Park, Mr.Chairman, it is ironic

really when we think about Wedgewood Park. In 1977, no one wanted Wedgewood

Park. They were like the fellow that the hon. Bill Keough used to say was out on

the Bill of Cape St. George by himself, Wedgewood Park was out there by

themselves, no one wanted Wedgewood Park. So finally a group of people in

Wedgewood Park, industrious people decided to get themselves formed into some

kind of an alliance or some kind of a - not a council, and they formed I think a

service board, a district service board and from that stemmed what we see today

as one of the best run, most viable towns in all of Newfoundland.

Now people say that Wedgewood Park are not doing their share.

They are not contributing. Mr. Chairman, they contribute to the waste problem.

They contribute to the workings of Robin Hood Bay.

On a per capita basis, they do their own snow clearing where

they have to contribute themselves through their own machines and their own

workers; they have their own depot in there, they contribute to everything else

that they are asked to contribute to, but through good management, through good

management they can afford to charge perhaps a lesser rate than some other

nearby towns or another nearby city, but, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see that is a

disadvantage; I can see that being a reason why Wedgewood Park should become a

part of this supercity.

I mean, if they are that good at doing the thing that they do

best, then they should be left alone. They should be left alone to govern

themselves as they are doing today in an excellent manner. I go into Wedgewood

Park every now and then and you get a feeling once you go into the Town Hall

there; every one is doing something, every one is working, everyone is trying to

make that small town a better place in which to live, there is cordiality there,

there is response there to the human aspect of it; there is response there to

the individual who comes into the Town Hall and who has a complaint or whatever.

It is not a great big thing, but who says that being big is

better? Some people will, some people will take it seriously and think about it

seriously and say yes, it is better for the region itself. Well, Mr. Chairman, I

cannot see it for the life of me what, bringing Wedgewood Park, making Wedgewood

Park a part of a supercity, how that would be advantageous to any one, and I say

to the Premier, who has said over and over, that he will not force amalgamation

down anyone's throat, then I say to the Premier: now is the time; now is the

time to put your money where your mouth was and say: no, Wedgewood Park will not

be changed from its present status.

Mr. Chairman, you know, when you look at - again we look at

the Estimates, you can see where a great lot of money has been spent in salaries

alone, I mean, it is not - I did not bring it up, there are people there perhaps

it can be said that well they received justice for the work that they do, but,

Mr. Chairman, when I look at the money that is expended by that Department and

look at what is happening in Pouch Cover, where, for three years we have tried

to get water and sewer into the Bauline Road, where one person's septic tank is

the other person's well and that is the truth, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if we have all this money that we can throw out,

that if we have all this money that we can see that is being expended on

salaries, 35 per cent over three years, the Premier said it was last year's, we

all know it was last year's, but the point remains, it is 35 per cent over three

years no matter what year it was, and it is just too bad that the Government did

not have foresight enough to see what was going to happen last year before they

introduced this kind of wage scales over the last twelve months, but, Mr.

Chairman, what I have been told is that these changes in pay scales, many of

them were done after the Budget process, so, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely

wrong. I mean (inaudible) I mentioned Pouch Cove because there is an area in

Pouch Cove, although they are perhaps 60 odd per cent serviced, there is an area

in Pouch Cove that the Government should - we certainly have given Government

the message, that there is a health hazard there and when I look at all these

monies being spent by the Executive Council, for the life of me, I cannot see

why a couple of hundred thousand dollars could not be placed in that town to

augment that water supply if nothing else, to bring in that water supply from

the main road in Pouch Cove where there is a health - it is a health hazard. Now

with the change in direction from the Minister of Municipal Affairs - now

everything is done on this

schedule that they have - I do not think that Pouch

Cove this year, without some one, without the Government looking at it as a

health hazard, will be funded this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: With that said, Mr. Chairman -

MS. VERGE: By leave!

MR. PARSONS: I - a couple of minutes to clue up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave?

MR. PARSONS: There is a lot of monies -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

Does the hon. Member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: There is a lot of monies that have been

expended and I see that there is room for those expenditures maybe to be spent

in better areas. That areas that are concerns for the people that we are here to

represent.

Thank you very much.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to sort of

respond to some of the remarks that were made by the hon. Member for St. John's

East Extern about my having second thoughts. Some time ago I attended a meeting

in Wedgewood Park - in fact we went there to open a Credit Union which, as you

know, Credit Unions are now being regulated by the Department of Finance. And I

went there to help open a branch of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union.

The hon. Member for St. John's East was there too. And while there I had some

discussions with Mayor - I think he is Mayor - Paul Reynolds in Wedgewood Park,

and with Glen Collins whom I have known for many years. He is the Registrar at

Memorial. And with other people.

One of the things that has always intrigued me about the town

of Wedgewood Park is the extremely high calibre of the people who get elected to

office there. A very enthusiastic group of people, tremendous enthusiasm, and of

great ability. And they have been able, for various reasons, to make the town of

Wedgewood Park a very nice place in which to live. And not only that, but a good

place in which to develop business. And they were saying: what about this

amalgamation thing? Now I do not usually get into that because that is the

responsibility of the Department of Municipal Affairs, and my hon. colleague,

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I said: look, what you should do is make sure

that your views are known to the Government. They should. And I said: if you

want I will arrange meetings if you want to present your views. But they never

did come back to me for that and I did not want to take too much initiative.

But I really think that what might happen if an amalgamation

were to occur with St. John's, that these tremendous people who live in

Wedgewood Park and who do such a great job in council would offer themselves for

the bigger city. And I am sure they would make a great contribution to the

overall city of St. John's. And maybe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Well, sure. The type of enthusiasm that is

there, and for community development and so on, could very well be used by the

city of St. John's. And I would certainly welcome that. But as far as supporting

an enclave I find that difficult.

But at the same time to some extent the same remarks can be

made about Mount Pearl. An enthusiastic group of councillors who have done very

well over the years with help, and a group of citizens there who identify with

their city -

MS. VERGE: Why don't you leave well enough alone?

DR. KITCHEN: - very important. And I think too that if

amalgamation were to occur - and I am not going to get involved in whether it

should or should not at this point - the abilities of the people who offered

themselves in Mount Pearl would be available to the whole city. And that would

be a great thing as well.

And that is all I really meant by these remarks. I would like

to clarify that. That is the only reason I am speaking now, to clarify the

conversations that I held at the opening of the new branch of the Credit Union

in Wedgewood Park.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Insofar as the

debate on the Executive Council estimates have tended to centre of late on

municipal amalgamation, and perhaps because there appears to be in the air some

vibrations or some sort of mist that prevails through the fog that seems to hang

over the northeast Avalon of late, that there appears to be a degree of

amalgamation in the mist, in the fog, in the air, one cannot put one's finger on

it yet but obviously common sense and instinct would indicate that things are

probably about to happen. And given the record of this administration so far it

is probably safe to say that bad things are about to happen.

I think in a Province as poor as we are, with a slogan under

our coat of arms which is a quote from the Gospel of St. Matthew, which says:

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God," I think that is indicative of the fact that

we have enough troubles on this poor rock of ours as it is. And yet we seem to

have a Government whose own motto seems to be: if it is not broke we are going

to fix it. Well my position on many things that this particular administration

has taken

part in is if it is not broke why fix it? Do not fix it.

In my own particular district I have three communities that

were slated for amalgamation a year or two ago. Brighton, Triton and Pilley's

Island. Three individual communities separated by six or seven miles of wooded

coastal scenery and causeways. Communities whose character are very individual,

very distinct communities, having no desire to unite whatsoever. Public opinion

and municipal council opinion is in all three communities heavily and decidedly

against amalgamation. Yet their situation has been left on hold in Limbo for the

past number of months, well over a year, and they have not been told as yet. I

had my office check earlier today if they had gotten any word as to their status

vis--vis the proposed amalgamation, and certainly as of yet no word.

But at the same time the smaller communities in the area have

been impacted very negatively by the new municipal financing system of the

Wells' administration. And one wonders if life is going to be made so difficult

for small municipal entities that they will be forced to amalgamate, to join

together, to gather around any large non-residential source of taxation so as to

literally survive. And we just might have the communities of Brighton and

Pilley's Island reluctantly being forced into the even more reluctant arms of

Triton by virtue of actions of this particular Government.

I certainly hope things do not turn out that way. Because

that is not the way the people want it. They do not want to be resettled, they

do not want to be centralized, they do not want to be amalgamated, they do not

want to be rationalized and all the wonderful words that come out of this

administration.

And lo and behold in my mail - yesterday I guess it was, yes,

May 6 - I received a copy of a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs from

the town of Springdale. Now my colleagues in this House will remember that the

Mayor of Springdale derailed my petition campaign to save the Springdale

hospital, and it is only now that the town of Springdale and many of the

merchants in that town and many of whom were on council, realize that the

Springdale and Green Bay area has lost forty to fifty full time Government jobs.

And the economy of the area has been impacted very seriously in a negative

manner.

And they wrote the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs with

regard to the proposed supercity concept here on the northeast Avalon. And go

through a number of concerns that they have, some 320 miles from the capital

city, about the concentration of municipal, political and economic power in a

supercity, super region, whatever you want to call it, here on the northeast

Avalon that would completely unbalance existing political and economic

structures within this Province, certainly to the detriment of many communities

far to the north and east in the Green Bay - White Bay areas, the west coast, et

cetera.

This in my opinion, given where I come from and the people I

represent, this supercity concept is nothing more than a large power grab. It

causes me great problems and it would appear that a whole host of these

mini-amalgamations, much smaller than the one on the northeast Avalon, are being

proposed. And there has been deadly silence except for the amalgamation of Grand

Falls and Windsor there some time ago from the Government as to what it is

actually going to do with the forty odd or so groupings of a hundred plus

municipalities that were proposed nearly two years ago by the Minister.

We have not heard yet, Mr. Chairman, what the fate is for the

three municipalities in Green Bay, but here we have the town of Springdale, the

largest community in Green Bay, the service centre, the commercial hub of Green

Bay, extremely concerned about a growing political and economic power structure

here on the northeast Avalon called the supercity, or whatever you want to call

it. The city of Avalon causes worry even in north eastern Newfoundland in the

town of Springdale, some 3,500 people.

So, Mr. Chairman, this Government, wherever it lays its hand

it usually lays a trail of waste and destruction in its wake. Municipal

Government, being no exception to the rule, health care and education, of

course, being two other prime examples. It sort of reminds me, Mr. Chairman, of

if the Premier had opened an automotive garage and had a sign up asking people

to bring their vehicles there for repair, I do not think I would turn my vehicle

in to Clyde's garage, Mr. Chairman, for minor problems. I think the minor

problems might be entirely ignored and I may end up getting the motor completely

overhauled, and probably the car completely rebuilt even though minor

adjustments were needed. This Government seems to be only interested in doing

things on a grand scale far and above what the people want or what it has a

mandate from the people to do. I am sure the advertisements and flyers going

around on behalf of Clyde's garage there would be a guarantee that no mole hill

is too small to be turned into a mountain. So, Mr. Chairman, my position is

quite simply, if it is not broken, don't fix it. And, of course, Clyde's garage

will guarantee that if it is not broken they will break it so that they can fix

it, and no doubt the product in the end will be even worse than it was in the

beginning.

Mr. Chairman, this Government is quite capable of turning an

internal combustion engine into an external combustion engine, and that sort of

engine will burn everybody who comes within its environs. This Government has no

love for the people of Newfoundland. This Government tends to walk around this

Province with hobnailed boots showing very little respect for the people. Their

sociology, municipal and other groupings, this Government has a tendency to make

people fit its moulds, not to develop the moulds and fit the people. The people

of this Province appear to be the last on this Government's mind, Mr. Chairman.

They said in their election promises that the people would come before the

bottom line, but here we have plans, policies, structures, formulas, you name

it, Mr. Speaker, they all come before the people. Clyde's garage will fix your

car even if it is not broken. They will break it in order to fix it, Mr.

Chairman. They are a destructive force upon the face of this Province that has

caused nothing but trouble since they have come to office. Word has it that more

trouble is brewing on the municipal amalgamation front, and that which does not

need to be done, it certainly would appear to be in the wind these days, Mr.

Chairman. I only fear for some communities in my district, I fear for the City

of Mount Pearl nearby the City of St. John's, and heaven help the rest of the

Province, Mr. Chairman, if the Capital City of this Province becomes the city of

Avalon. I thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Opposition

House Leader, you know, he is a good friend I have to say. He is always

encouraging me, he is a pleasant fellow, and I have a great respect for his

experience. His political views I may differ with, but I must say I have great

respect for his respect for the House and his abilities. But you know, Mr.

Chairman, Executive Council Estimates, part of the estimates of Executive

Council involved the Hibernia Monitoring Committee and involved the review and

the watching of the development of Hibernia and I have to reflect to 1982 when I

was a young graduate of Memorial University and came out of the Commerce

programme with great enthusiasm and still have it and came out of the programme

and there was a recession then and I think many Members will remember that. It

was a difficult time to get a job like it is now, you are coming out at a time

when companies -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am getting to that, I am getting to

that. Now when I was there in 1982, I was hearing about Hibernia, I was hearing

about the offshore and as a young B. Comm. I was hoping that I would be able to

avail of the opportunities of Hibernia and looking forward to that, that was

nine and a half years ago, and I was enthusiastic and I said, I am going to stay

in this Province, no matter what it takes and made sure that I did and went out

and found employment and beat the streets and put the resumes every where and

created something or try to create something as best I could, like you would and

did that. But I kept hearing Hibernia for a long time, I heard it since 1979

when I was in my second or third year university, I heard it up to my fifth year

when I became a graduate and decided to pursue some opportunities.

My reason for stating that and for reflecting on that, is

that Hibernia has arrived as part of the development of the Province and was one

of the components or was one of the many industries of the Province, and I

believe that it would have a very big impact on the Province. I think it will

have an impact on entrepreneurs, on people who want to start a business, on

people who want to identify opportunities and then to seek out those

opportunities and start their business, and I am very pleased to see that this

opportunity exists now; not only was it a dream or was it an idea or concept, it

is now reality and it is something that people can go after with full vigour and

achieve.

They can open a business related to Hibernia, there are a

thousand different types of ideas, there are a thousand different services that

people can avail of that are going to be required for this project; if one goes

over to look in a business library or look at the list of business opportunities

that have been put forward by the consortium of the ideas or services that will

be required, there are hundreds, literally hundreds of opportunities, so it is

up to a lot of our young people coming through the commerce degrees and their

business degrees, people who are involved in business, people who have been

senior business people in this Province to take advantage of Hibernia as it is a

major development for this Province; it is the largest oil development, probably

in North America in the next number of years and, it is something that will

bring to us a great deal of excellence and expertise from around the world.

Technology that we will probably have invented here,

technology to be used for the first time, and under Executive Council, the

monitoring committee has been put in place to ensure that these benefits are

accrued to this Province as best as we can; we cannot have it all but we can

certainly strive for that and hopefully get the majority share of what we can

achieve.

We have to be realistic on that because of our population and

so on but we should be striving to get as many benefits as we can from the

Hibernia project. It is a huge, huge project, it is something that will

certainly help develop the Province for the next ten to fifteen to twenty years

and it is something that we should be more vocal about and we should be

encouraging younger people and any business person in the Province to avail of

and to look into it and to start a business and to seek opportunity.

It is here now, it is here, it is real, it is something that

I think many people never did believe was going to appear; for many years they

were told that it might and for whatever reasons, it took that many years to

unfold and a lot of major players who were involved worked to develop this and I

am very pleased to see that this Government has been able to get the agreement

and to get the project off the ground.

I am hoping that the work that will be undertaken for the

project will be as much as possible, distributed around the Province. A number

of these sub-contracts can have a positive effect, not only on the Avalon

Peninsula, but also on Central and Western Newfoundland and Labrador, and

hopefully the people, the entrepreneurs who are involved are taking advantage of

those opportunities and are seeking those opportunities. A number of major

projects if they were to go to other parts of the Province would certainly be of

benefit to other regions of the Province and would see the impact of Hibernia

spread not only for the St. John's area and the Avalon Peninsula but to other

parts and I think that is important and I think that Nodeco, the consortium

should - I think they understand that and I am very glad to see that the

monitoring committee which is made up of capable executive officials of the

Government is there to impress upon them, the need of distributing the wealth as

much as they can around the Province and ensuring that as much as can be done

will be done.

It is extremely important that the major oil companies

understand this; it is important that they understand that this is a project for

all of the Province and all of Canada and I think that the Federal Government,

Provincial Governments and the setting up of the Offshore Development Board and

the monitoring committees of both levels of Governments will certainly help to

insure that this project attains the full benefit for the region.

I think that it is a very worthwhile exercise, and I believe

that we are building on something that the previous Government in a sense, when

the Board was put in place, I just would hope that we will see more benefit

coming out of it. It is starting to unfold. In the next year or so I believe

that you are going to see major developments occurring, and you are going to see

millions and millions being spent in this Province, and I think that certainly

is going to drive the economy. As we are in a recession Canada wide, North

America wide, hopefully it will certainly help us come out of this recession

much quicker than we expected.

I believe it gives opportunities to everybody in business,

and anybody who thinks about getting into a business. It is pleasant to see us

not having to travel and go to a major project or seek out an opportunity which

is away from us. It is nice to have it on our doorstep or just off our doorstep

which is unusual in our Province as we have always had to travel to other places

most of the time to seek other opportunities. And I think of the manufacturing

sector in Central Canada where many of our people go to find employment. At

least maybe we can build a bigger base that allows our people here to generate

the economy here that we need to keep our people here. And I think Hibernia,

being set forth by this Government has certainly been very positive and I see it

to be more positive as the months unfold. I think you are going to see many

positive things coming out of it. But the thing is and the point to be made is

that people cannot sit there and say well, it is here and that is fine and

dandy. You have to go in and seek the opportunity. I have been speaking to a

number of business people in many regions of the Province and there were

seminars held during the past two years on the West Coast and Central

Newfoundland and on the East Coast identifying to these companies what the

opportunities might be. So it is up to our people, it is up to us as a

Government, and us as Members to encourage people to take these opportunities

and to get into them. And I only hope that will occur.

The other thing I wanted to just bring up, Mr. Chairman, with

respect to the Executive Council Estimates is the fact that under this heading

IGA, Intergovernmental Affairs is also there, and being undertaken right now are

the discussions of the fiscal transfer arrangements between the Federal and the

Provincial Governments of Canada. It is now a major, major issue for our

Government and it is certainly going to be a major issue in the future. These

fiscal transfer arrangements are going to have to be restructured and

re-organized. They are going to have to be done in a proper manner that reflects

the Canada of the day, that reflects the needs of the have not provinces,

provinces that have not developed as well as others have, and have had the

advantages that others have had and these fiscal transfers are going to have to

be done in the proper manner. I know that discussions are underway now between

levels of Government to see that these fiscal transfers arrangements are put in

the right perspective, that when they are finalized I sincerely hope that they

will reflect the needs of the provinces. Bill C-69 which was brought forward by

the Federal Government sent a very major signal to many of the provinces,

especially the poor ones, as to what they are going to have to do to keep their

health care systems going and so on. It is not positive at all, it is very

negative, it is very extreme. I only hope that the Federal Government will get

its act together when it comes to these negotiations and will understand the

concerns of each region in negotiating these arrangements and in satisfying the

different regions of Canada. It is a large and diverse country and it deserves

the standard of living that we now have, but it deserves a better one, certain

regions deserve better, and it does not necessarily mean that you have to give

special treatment. What it means is you reflect upon and you look at the needs

of those regions. And certain regions need more help than others and it is

certainly time that the Federal Government makes and pays that attention.

I just wanted to point out these two items, Mr. Chairman,

under the items of Executive Council. I believe these two are major, major items

for discussion, and I would look forward to hearing further responses on those.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to comment on a few of the comments made by my

colleague for Stephenville pertaining to the Hibernia project, and a few other

comments as well on the Executive Council. I had an opportunity on Friday past

to speak to the Chamber of Commerce in Deer Lake and that was the subject they

wanted me to have a few words on, Hibernia. After all the meetings over the last

number of years, and all the talk about the Hibernia project I was surprised, I

really was surprised, to learn and see the lack of knowledge and the lack of

understanding of the Hibernia project by business people, and it is not only in

my area. I experienced it in Corner Brook by some fairly large companies, except

for the Lundrigan Group. The Lundrigan Group are very aware of what is going on

with it, and what the repercussions are. I just last week had a couple of

meetings with some people from Lundrigans pertaining to the project itself and

some other matters pertaining to the district, and except for those people it is

frightening, now that the project is started and we are looking forward, I am as

well, and I can well understand why the Member for Stephenville is interested in

it because it could be something directly affecting his district with regards to

the new contract for the camps, the other 2600 units, but it was frightening to

say the least. As I went through my presentation on it, with my little knowledge

of the project, what I thought was a little knowledge, I was surprised after the

presentation when everybody walked up and said, thanks a million, we finally

learned something about it. We finally learned something about the Hibernia

project and the possibilities we have to try and get some work out of it.

Mr. Chairman, I think, through no fault of anybody, that is

where we are going to fall down as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. After all

the years we talked about it I do not think we are ready for it. I do not want

to be pessimistic on it, but talking to different business leaders around this

Province today they do not know where to go. If they do not have a joint venture

formed already, as far as I am concerned, they are out in left field, to say the

least. One of the great chances we have today, especially for the West Coast of

the Province, pertaining to the Hibernia project directly now, is the contract

for the other 2600 units under Phase O of the project, the 3000 man camp. That

was suppose to be let out last week, and now it is supposed to be this week, but

why the delay? I made a phone call to Nodeco today and got no answers. Why it is

not out is beyond me. It is suppose to be let. Now, there may be some conflict,

yes. There may be some conflict between the Member for Stephenville and the

Member for Botwood because two of the companies, the Lundrigan Group in

conjunction with another firm are bidding to do it out of the Stephenville

operation under Atlantic Design Homes, and another group Pennecon is combining

with another firm to do it out of Botwood. There is another, I understand,

affiliated with a company from Mount Pearl. I think the tenders must be pretty

close because there has still been no announcement made on that. It was suppose

to be out a couple of weeks ago, I think, and it is not out now. I hope for the

sake of everybody in this Province, especially for the West Coast of the

Province, that contract does not go to somewhere outside the Province. I was

given different reasons why the first one went to Kent out of New Brunswick. One

of the basic reasons, I was told, was because the other companies could not be

ready, they could not have it ready in time. If it is an excuse, good enough, if

it is a legitimate one, and if it is not it can probably be covered anyway. That

camp site is very important to the West Coast of the Province for two reasons.

The economic reasons, primarily because of the camp site is one thing, but the

second part of it is the psychological effect it is going to have on the

business of the West Coast of the Province to try to take advantage of other

areas on the Hibernia project. One of the other things that surprised me, an

area that surprised me pertaining to the offshore, to get off strictly the

Hibernia project alone right now, is the interest that was shown in the new

licenses issued for the West Coast of the Province for the offshore.

Out of the eight claims, seven out of the eight claims went

offshore West Coast. And now the Minister has indicated that as of February 15

the new regulations are in place for onshore. And right from the western part of

Newfoundland right on up through the Humber Valley down the northern peninsula,

there is a great potential for hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons have been found there

back as early, early 1800s.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I believe in the past hundred years there

has been something like sixty-six wells drilled on the west coast of the

Province. And that augurs well for the oil industry. And granted that all the

experience gained probably from the Hibernia development now will finally some

day I suppose be able to be used by companies right here in the Province,

ourselves, the local people, to try and encourage entrepreneurs to get involved,

especially when it comes to the west coast part of the Province with regards to

the - both offshore and onshore. And as we know, one of the reasons for interest

in the offshore activity over there is because of the presence of hydrocarbons

both on land and offshore, and the shallow water that is offshore western

Newfoundland. That is one of the big reasons. And the amount of activity over

the years that has showed positive signs of hydrocarbons.

If we miss out on the Hibernia contracts now - the other

thing that I cannot understand from Nodeco, for instance, is why they are so

evasive with some of the information. Just today I called and asked for a list

of the contractors, the contracts that had been let so far on the Hibernia

project and a list of the sub-contractors and so on. They were fairly touchy and

I do not know why. There is no secret. It is all out. I just wanted a list so I

could have it today and have it compiled under one heading. I would like to know

because I would like to be able to pass it along to some of the people who have

been asking questions in my area.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you're Tory (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: And some of the people asking the questions

are not Tory, they are good Liberals. But even though, I always pass along the

information anyway. Regardless of what they are. Because the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I know. But I have not got a copy of

it, and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: But even with the sub-contractors, what

they are doing, some of the contracts have been let, for instance, the one on

Kent Home, on the Kent out of New Brunswick, on those 400 units. I had a fellow

for two weeks trying to get information on how they were going to haul them into

the Province. And finally he got it after pretty well all in. They trucked some

in with their own units out of New Brunswick and took the rest in by water. So

when it was all said and done it was too late, he could not even bid, he never

even had the opportunity to bid. So that is what I am talking about, about a

small operator.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he a Liberal?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, by the way, he is Liberal. I thought

the Minister and probably the administration would probably have it out to him.

But now because of that - and he never got the information and it is too late -

then I would say he will probably be in my camp the next election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: There is a lot of inequity so far. Nothing,

I suppose, serious to the extent that we may miss out. And I think that every

Member here has a responsibility to make sure that our business people and the

people who could take advantage of some of the contracts, not necessarily the

main contract, but even the sub-contracts or the sub sub-contracts. A lot of our

people could take advantage of that if they knew of it, but there has been a

problem in accessing the information, and that is one of the things that we have

to be careful of.

The quality control part of it for our companies and the

quality assurance, I do not think we have one - we might have two or three in

the Province except for the joint venture part of the companies that may have

the expertise. Just looking at that if any Member -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I am not speaking anymore.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

MR. SIMMS: Sit down, boy, sit down. You are making a fool

of yourself.

MR. SIMMS: Your time is up is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to introduce a

couple of other topics that I have been asked by dozens and dozens of people

from all over the Province to raise from time to time, I usually keep little

notes and scraps of paper and the first opportunity or the earliest opportunity

I will flick it out in debate and maybe some Minister will stand and respond. It

is very similar to what the Minister of Social Services used to do from time to

time. As a matter of fact, I have to tell him -

MR. EFFORD: Take a lesson.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I went out there the other day and

borrowed his flashlight one day not long ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I do not know where - the Member for Humber

East, but I borrowed his flashlight and went out and checked out something not

long ago.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to touch on the salary issue paid to

executives. I want to touch on that again in my ten minutes. Well, the main

reason is because I noticed with some interest the Premier trying to answer the

Member for Carbonear, for example, and myself yesterday who were interviewed by

CBC television and commenting on this issue. I noticed the Premier, in trying to

explain it away, and I know that the Member for Carbonear was not fooled for one

minute, nor was I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I saw you on NTV, but the Premier said -

I almost had to laugh - it is like they cannot take responsibility for anything.

He even blamed that on the previous administration. The reason for the increases

in the salary of the executives was because of the HAY system brought in by the

previous administration. By God, I thought that was a -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will tell -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will explain -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: If the President of Treasury Board will give

me a chance to get a word in, I will explain.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I will explain why I want to raise it, because

that is such a flimsy excuse and argument that it is almost laughable. Of course

the previous administration brought in the HAY system. The HAY system is a

recognized system throughout, I suppose, the universe, certainly throughout

Canada. In jurisdictions all over the world the HAY system is a system that is

used when you have no system, which is what we had for many, many years.

MR. EFFORD: Seventeen years you had no system.

MR. SIMMS: But here is the point, for nearly forty years,

the twenty three years of the Liberal rein there was no system -

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus seventeen.

MR. SIMMS: Plus seventeen or almost seventeen before we

brought it in. Really there was an ad hoc system, but, Mr. Chairman, the point

of the argument is this, I mean to blame, somehow to try to divert the

accusation and allegation made by the Member for St. John's South, by the Member

for Pleasantville, and by the Member for Carbonear to try to deflect their

criticisms as well as ours over this issue, he says, 'oh, that was because of

the HAY system brought in by the previous administration.' But I must say the

CBC journalists did not let the Premier off the hook because he added his own

tag at the end by saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a Tory.

MR. SIMMS: Rick Seaward is a Tory? You have got to be

kidding me! I do not know if the press gallery is listening, but if they aren't,

I shall be certain to tell them what the Member for Carbonear said. Rick Seaward

is a Tory, I tell the Member for Carbonear, you could have fooled us. You could

have fooled us! But I will say one thing for him, he did not let the Premier off

the hook because, as he said, when the Premier said this was the fault of the

previous administration because they brought in the HAY system, he made the

point quite clearly that that did not prevent the Cabinet of today from turning

down or rejecting these sizeable increases, and that, of course, is the point.

MR. RIDEOUT: They could not say no.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. As has been said on public television on

other occasions in major debates, you did have an option, you could have said no

- no, no, no!

MR. BAKER: How many more times do you want me to say no?

MR. SIMMS: So, I had to introduce that.

The best thing for the Minister, the President of Treasury

Board, to do when these things come up is just admit it, confess and admit it,

you made a mistake, you should not have agreed to these significant increases,

especially after announcing there was going to be a $120 million deficit. You

should have said, Boys, under the HAY system, here is what they are entitled to,

but let us put it on hold; I do not think we will do it. You could have done it.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You could have done it.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You could have done it.

The President of Treasury Board could have said no, and he

knows it. And, Mr. Chairman, if you need any more evidence, I mean, it is not

only us. Look, there is the paper with the Member for St. John's South, the

Member for Carbonear and the Member for Pleasantville: Some Liberal backbenchers

oppose salary increases for executives. Now, Mr. Chairman, if their own members

do not understand it and do not agree with it, why, in the name of heavens can

the Opposition not bring it up. Of course, we will bring it up.

So, I wanted to raise that to get the debate back on track a

bit, not that the matters being discussed were not of interest and importance,

they were; but, over the last two months since the Minister of Finance brought

in his Budget, I have talked to so many public servants who are so upset with

this Government for all kinds of reasons, as the Member for Carbonear knows. He

said in his interview and he said on television that a lot of his constituents

are giving him heat on this issue, in particular. For those who have been asked

to take a wage freeze and for those who have lost their jobs, that is very hard

to understand.

MR. BAKER: Name one.

MR. SIMMS: Name one what?

MR. BAKER: One public servant.

MR. SIMMS: Do you want me to name a public servant? Would

the Minister like me to name a public servant?

AN HON. MEMBER: I would not dare.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I could name one that he has already

fired, so they do not have to be concerned, but I certainly would not name a

public servant who is still employed in the system, because they are all scared

to death of this Government because of the Gestapo tactics that you use. You

have them totally intimidated. You have them intimidated. You are back to Joey's

day, using intimidation and fear. They know it, and you cannot fool them for a

second.

MR. RIDEOUT: You have already put them in jail, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Chairman, these are only preliminary

remarks, yet.

Now, there is another matter. I said I would raise some

matters that I have been asked to raise by people I am talking to; constituents,

public servants, around the Province have asked me to raise these things, so I

am raising them.

AN HON. MEMBER: A massive uprising.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I say to the President of Treasury Board,

there could very well be a massive uprising and he had better be careful.

Now, here is another minor issue, I am sure, in the mind of

the President of Treasury Board. Somebody called me and said: For the love of

heavens, the first chance you get in the House of Assembly to ask Winse Baker a

question, publicly - because, I mean, I talk to the Government House Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not Question Period.

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not Question Period, but let me

throw it out, anyway: Why will he not accept an invitation from George MacLaren

or Bill Rowe to go on Open Line?

MR. RIDEOUT: They are supposed to replace the Ombudsman.

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am saying, it is not a major issue in

the mind of the President of Treasury Board, but, in the minds of many people

out there, the thousands who have been kicked out by the Government, the

thousands who have been fired by the Government and the thousands and tens of

thousands who have had their wages frozen. They want to have a chance to have a

crack at the President of Treasury Board. What is happening, Mr. Chairman, is

that the Minister of Finance even goes on, the Minister of Social Services goes

on, and other Ministers go on, the Premier goes on. But George MacLaren butts in

- when a caller calls in and says: Bill, why do you not get Winse Baker on the

line? and Bill says, I can't get him on the line because I can't get him to

answer my phone calls - and George butts in and says: Yes, Bill, I can't get him

to answer my phone calls, either.

So, I want the President of Treasury Board to tell the

Province, tell the people of this country, why he will not go on Bill Rowe's

Open Line Show. It is extremely important to those people out there.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) go on with Ron Pumphrey.

MR. SIMMS: Go on the Ron Pumphrey show.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Ombudsman.

MR. SIMMS: Well, it is interesting the Minister of

Finance mentioned that because that is precisely the reason they want you on the

Open Line Program, precisely the reason because you flicked out the Ombudsman,

you tore up The Ombudsman Act, you took away the right that the people have to

go to an independent person to present problems that they have when they feel

wrongly done by this Government, and lord knows there are thousands who have

been wrongly done by this Government over the last couple of months in

particular. They flicked that out and the reason you gave was because MHAs will

take up their causes, and now you cannot even get the President of Treasury

Board to go on Open Line for god sake. How can they get a hold of him? So maybe

he can answer that. Will he answer this, and I will sit down then, my ten

minutes are just about up -

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible) Gander Beacon.

MR. SIMMS: But I have one important question for the

President of Treasury Board, if he will give me ten seconds.

MR. WINSOR: You see, the President of Treasury Board

wrote to the Gander Beacon -

MR. SIMMS: The President of Treasury Board wrote to The

Gander Beacon -

MR. WINSOR: - protesting that he is getting unfair

criticism.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, did he? That is a sure sign that they are

getting through to him. The public servants must be getting through to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Member's time has

elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: I will raise it the next time, it is about

Princess Anne, I thought he might let me get on with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Tell the truth now.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I think the Princess Anne issue I dealt with

yesterday, I do not know if the Member was here or not, $130,000 was being spent

on the Royal Visit.

In terms of the question about the Open Line Show, first of

all, I do not know recently of any requests for me to go on the Show by popular

demand. I do know that during the NAPE strike back last June there were a couple

of calls and at that point in time I did not want to inflame a situation that

did not need to be inflamed, so I refused to go on. But I believe, since that

time, recently I have not had any phone calls from him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I know. Recently I have not had any phone

calls from that particular show.

However, I should point out to the hon. Member that I really

do not have time to sit around in the morning listening to the show and I do not

really have time to give up in the morning. Now after the House closes my time

may be a little freer. At that point in time maybe I will myself call Mr.

MacLaren and call Mr. Rowe and suggest that I would like to come and sit in on

their Show for an hour or two or whatever the case may be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: What I was about to do, Mr. Chairman, was go

over some truth to counteract some of the impressions that the Member opposite

is giving, but I see even the press has left the gallery. I suppose even they

are not interested in what I am going to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: What I would like to do is this, I would like

to deal with the statement made by the Opposition House Leader that somehow

after we knew about the serious financial position of the Province that there

was one group that we gave huge salary increases to. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to be totally honest with the Members opposite, totally honest with the

people on this side, totally honest with the people in the gallery, and the

press who I know are listening up there, and I would like to confess to all of

the increases that were given after we recognized we had a financial problem. I

will go through it. I have it all done up here, and with the dates and

everything. First of all, there was the CUPE workers at the Aquarena, got 2 per

cent, since we knew about our financial problem. The Cabot Institute Support

Staff which happens to be NAPE got 3 per cent. The General Service and NAPE, a

very large union got 6 per cent, 3 and 3, one of the 3's, both of them were

given recently. The Nape group homes got 3 per cent. The hospital support staff

CUPE got 3 per cent. The hospital support staff NAPE got 3 per cent.

MR. SIMMS: When?

MR. BAKER: Since we found out about our financial

problems.

MR. SIMMS: When, October 1?

MR. BAKER: October 1, yes.