November

27, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 73

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier met I

believe, with the Hibernia partners in Calgary and I was kind of hoping he might

have made a statement to the House on that meeting. I know that he made some

comments to the press in an interview after the House. From reading the report

in the Evening Telegram, he says that he does not know what will happen with

Texaco but hopes that they will come aboard. He also said: If Texaco says no

then we have to consider the other potential partners that were interested and

see where we go from there. At least that is a quote attributed to him. Now that

is a fairly cautious statement. I would like to ask him: Is there any reason to

think that Texaco may not buy into the Hibernia project as a result of his

meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely none whatsoever, Mr. Speaker,

only reason to have continued optimism, but I am not prepared to presume what

Texaco will do. They are doing a full due diligent assessment of it and at

sometime, I think around mid-December, their board is going to make a decision.

I am not prepared to presume what they will do or to create false hopes only to

have something dashed if they decided to the contrary. So, I am just being full

and frank about the issue at the moment. I have no reason to be the least bit

pessimistic about what Texaco will do.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier made references as I

said, considering other potential partners, if something were to happen with

Texaco. Now, the impression that was left, at least at the time of the search

for a partner to replace Gulf, was that Texaco was really the only viable

option. Are there in fact others as the Premier suggested in those comments and

if so can he give us some idea who it might be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know who left the impression that

Texaco was the only viable option. That was never left by me and never left by

anybody so far as I know. There were other expressions of interest.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, hypothetical as this may be, if a

partner were not to be found for some reason for Hibernia, both government's,

federal and provincial government's have agreed to reimburse the Hibernia

partner's for up to 75 per cent of the money they will have spent, I believe it

is since May 15th. Can the Premier give us some indication now of how much the

Province would be liable for, at this point in time, if that were to happen?

Just to give the taxpayers some indication.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know it is important for

the taxpayers to have information but I say in all honesty to the Leader of the

Opposition that all he and I are doing by this interchange, is making it more

difficult to cause a resolution to this problem to be put into place without

difficulty by speculating as to what it might cost and speculating as to who

other partners might be and what this one might do and might not do.

I say to him, in all honesty, one of the things that I did

discuss with the three oil company executives in Calgary is the harm that is

being done by trying to find a resolution to this problem by this kind of

speculation.

Now I do not wish to attribute any blame to the Leader of the

Opposition in raising the question. I understand the interest of the people of

the Province. I understand the interest of the Leader of the Opposition; but I

express to him, in all honesty, that we are really not serving the people of the

Province or the overall problem well by these kind of speculative questions, and

equally speculative answers on my part.

I assure him that I will give him the best information that I

possibly can. I will also sit down with him privately and give him information

on a private basis; but I say to him honestly that I really do not think we are

doing either the overall project or the Province any good by this kind of

speculative questioning and equally speculative answering.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the advice of the Premier and I would certainly

welcome an opportunity to sit down with him privately to hear what he has to

say. I am merely following up on public statements, as he knows, that he has

already made to local media; so I think it is important that the taxpayers and

the people of the Province have some idea.

I want to ask him two final questions. One could be perceived

as speculative. He met with the Prime Minister last week, and I presume Hibernia

was a hot topic for discussion. Can he confirm the reports in the Globe and

Mail, for example, recently that the federal government has offered Texaco a

package of $200 million to try to encourage them to join the consortium?

Secondly, and this is certainly not speculative: Did he

request, and did he receive assurances from the Prime Minister, that the

financial support for Hibernia, committed by the federal government, would

escape the spending reviews that are going on at the federal level at the

moment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There were two questions. The first one:

Did the Prime Minister give assurances to Texaco - or did the federal government

give assurances - that they would provide an additional $200 million for Texaco?

Mr. Speaker, the basic proposal is that the federal

government will provide a tax structure and arrangement, a support system, that

would put Texaco in the same position as they would have been in had they been

originally a partner on an equitable basis, as Gulf would have been in if Gulf

had remained - no more, no less. They are not giving Texaco any more than they

would have provided for Gulf, to cause the same effect.

I do not want to mislead anybody. The fact that Texaco may be

in a somewhat different position with respect to its operations in Canada and so

on, it may take a different kind of response to put Texaco in that position.

That is true. But that is the basic principle that is being followed. Beyond

that, I would think that it would be inappropriate for me to express any views

or thoughts as to what the federal government did or didn't undertake. Because,

although we have had representatives at most of the discussions, those

discussions have taken place between the federal officials and Texaco directly.

So I would be speculating in part, too, on that.

The other question that the leader asked was: Did I get an

undertaking from the Prime Minister that whatever was necessary for Hibernia

would escape the cuts? I didn't even ask the Prime Minister for that

undertaking, because I know of the Prime Minister's personal commitment to

Hibernia, and he reaffirmed it to me when we talked. We did talk about Hibernia,

the value of the project to Canada, to Newfoundland and to Quebec. Look, bear in

mind, Mr. Speaker, that while there are 1500 people working in Newfoundland,

1100 or so in Bull Arm and another 400 or so in St. John's, there are also 750

working In Quebec and there are others working in other parts of Canada,

carrying on with this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Paris.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not too concerned about Paris, but

from a Canadian point of view, there are 750 people working in -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) should be there.

PREMIER WELLS: If the member would just stop babbling -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - I will try and finish the answer to the

question.

So I didn't ask the Prime Minister for that undertaking. I

have every confidence that there is no intention to cut Hibernia. The news media

and others were floating this proposition around with the suggestion that the

Auditor General was going to recommend that this be done. All of this is

speculation and nonsense, and it really doesn't do any good to the overall

project, to be speculating on it in this way.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier. On Tuesday I

asked the Premier about prospects for the gypsum plant in Corner Brook which has

been closed since last Spring and only operated for two weeks this year. I asked

the Premier if he could give any hope to people that the gypsum plant will

reopen. The Premier replied that he was hopeful a purchase proposal would come

into fruition very soon and that he would check on specifics and report to the

House the next day, on Wednesday. Yesterday the Premier told me he would report

today. Since the Premier didn't make a statement under Ministerial Statements, I

am calling on him to report now, will the gypsum plant reopen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If the member had had patience, it was a

question and I undertook to get the answer. I was going to report on Answers to

Questions. It was a question and I would have reported on it, but since she has

asked the question, I have no quarrel with doing it right now, Mr. Speaker.

The situation was, Mr. Speaker, that over the course of the

last two or three months, a proposal had been developed where a group of

employees would put up some money and promote a company that would take over

certain assets - the concrete production assets in Corner Brook and St. John's,

the gypsum plant in Corner Brook, and together, they felt that could be a viable

operation that could be continued.

The government had agreed to put up a guarantee of $3.2

government were asked to reconsider the position. The shareholders had put up $1

million equity, I believe, was the figure.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, the financial institution that had

agreed to provide for the funding of this came back and said it was hesitant to

proceed without two further things, a further equity injection by the

participants of another $500,000 and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If the babbling would stop, I will finish.

- a further equity injection of $500,000 and, Mr. Speaker, if

the government would address a further concern they had because of a court case

in, I believe, Alberta - or Ontario, I have forgotten which. Anyway, a court in

one of those provinces had decided that where a receiver moves in to take over

and sell the assets of an operation, if, in fact, the environmental cleanup

costs greatly exceed the value of the assets, the bank or the receiver

responsible has to pay and take over all of those cleanup obligations. So,

financial institutions are now gun-shy about doing this. So the bank wanted an

undertaking from the government that they would be relieved of any environmental

- the bank would be relieved. Well, the government couldn't do that. We couldn't

give an undertaking that the bank would be relieved, but we agreed to an

alternative that was equally acceptable to the bank and the bank accepted it.

The shareholders could not come up with the additional equity, Mr. Speaker, so

the government has done its part, it provided the guarantee, it provided for the

additional condition that would have enabled it to proceed so, Mr. Speaker, that

proposal did not proceed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there were other bidders and the receiver

is at this moment carrying on discussions and negotiations with the other

bidders. The other bidders were a combination; one was bidding for only the

concrete production assets alone I believe, another was bidding for both of it.

I do not know how that will come about. This has only happened in the last few

days. I got the information yesterday, and as the hon. member for Humber East

knows, I gave it to her personally yesterday afternoon, advised her of the

circumstances and that I would fully answer the question this morning. We had

not gotten to Answer to Questions as Your Honour knows.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is very, very disappointing news for the people in

western Newfoundland whose livelihood depends on the gypsum plant.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: is it not true the reason he

did not know what was going on on Tuesday, is that all along he has been far

removed from the gypsum plant? Is it not true that the Premier and his

government have been passive during the past seven months that the gypsum plant

has been closed, and their lack of initiative has jeopardised the future

operation of the only gypsum wallboard and polybead manufacturing business in

the Province, and one of the very few manufacturing businesses of any kind left

in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know how to explain that kind of

thing, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to understand how the hon. member could,

with a modicum of intellectual integrity, stand in this House and say that. I

mean, it is just incredible, it is beyond words. Mr. Speaker, for the last four

to six months there has been a Cabinet committee working on this problem; I have

had numerous, numerous meetings and discussions with the proponents of this. I

met last week in this building with one of the prime investors of this to

discuss it; I have talked to the banks about it; I have talked to others about

it; I have had discussions as late as two days ago about it, all with a view to

trying to find a solution.

Officials have been working on it; Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador has been working on it; the Cabinet committee has been working on

it; the Minister of Finance has been diligently working on it; the Minister of

Justice has been working on it; the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

has been working on it, there is a Cabinet committee. Now, we cannot provide the

equity too, unless the member is suggesting that the government take over every

failed business in the Province. We cannot do that, the taxpayers of this

Province cannot do that and for the member to grandstand in this way, and

fabricate those suggestions in this way is utterly despicable, Mr. Speaker. She

is not at all interested in what is happening in Corner Brook, not at all

interested in what is happening to the gypsum plant, just the political bigotry.

It is a sad, sad commentary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How can the Premier expect people to believe his government

could not or should not have done more to secure the future of the gypsum plant,

when on Tuesday, he did not even know what was going on, and when his partisan

government lending agency, Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, has given so

many bad loans to so many less worthy business proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is easy to say it, Mr. Speaker, because

every word that I have just said is the absolute truth of the matter. It fully

explains the matter. Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the vice-president

in the Corner Brook office in particular, have been working on this diligently

on a regular basis for the last number of weeks, and every problem that has been

raised that has been within the government's power to develop, including

answering the bank's concern about the environmental situation to the full

satisfaction of the bank. They accepted the additional undertaking that the

government was prepared to give. It is not now given and it is not necessary to

give it because it is not proceeding.

If another proposal comes up from another banking

institution, we are prepared to give the same undertaking to see the Atlantic

Gypsum Plant proceed. We are also prepared, Mr. Speaker, to do everything within

the power of government to cause that plant to continue to operate.

Four months ago I went looking for operators myself. I made

personal telephone contacts with a person who I thought was interested in doing

it, to try and promote equity interest in doing it, before the employees came

forward with their proposal. So every possible effort has been made by the

government and by me personally. These silly comments of the member now are

despicable.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What hope can the Premier give to the gypsum plant workers

and the others in western Newfoundland whose livelihood depends on the gypsum

plant? What is the Premier going to do for the gypsum plant workers - for the

many experienced employees whose UI benefits run out very soon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give a

guarantee to the people who work in the gypsum plant in Corner Brook merely

because some of them are my constituents or they are from Corner Brook. I am not

prepared to give special treatment to the people in my district or the people in

Corner Brook that I will not give to everybody - every other Newfoundlander and

Labradorian working in any plant. We run a fair and balanced government, in case

the hon. member has forgotten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: What I am prepared to say to the people of

the gypsum plant, Mr. Speaker, is that the government will leave no stone

unturned - no reasonable stone unturned - to cause that plant to continue to

operate, but I will not pretend that we can upset Gros Morne mountain, and

neither should the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister of Social Services.

In the House on November 4th., after being questioned by me

on emergency repairs for two individuals in Bellevue district, the minister

said: I will check that out in Bellevue district and see exactly what has

happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member.

MR. HARRIS: On November 5th. the minister told the House,

and I quote: I am happy to report to the House that in fact the case has been

looked after, I believe a couple of months ago, of the two disabled individuals

who required heat and electricity added to their House. Through the intervention

and the hard work of the Member for Bellevue, and my staff, we were able to

carry out that work some two months ago.

Can the minister tell the House what investigations he

carried out in order to make that statement to the House on November 5th., or

did he rely solely on the information provided to him by the Member for

Bellevue? Can he tell the House now that that information was wrong?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question under

advisement and report back to the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not admit that

the kind of response that he is giving right now is indicative of a totally

irresponsible attitude by him and his government when the House is provided with

false information? The work was not done until well after the question was

raised in the House, and the minister is not able to provide the information.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that the information

that he was giving to the House regarding the provision of emergency services

was in fact wrong; that the standards were lower; that in fact he authorized a

memorandum sent from the Director of Social Assistance to say the following: I

cannot emphasize too strongly that referrals shall only be made in cases of

extreme emergency and where the lack of intervention may lead to the individual

or family having to leave the home and possibly be accommodated in a hotel.

Will he confirm to the House that what in fact has happened

to the emergency housing program is that it has become very, very restrictive,

and only cases where the department thinks that it is going to have to pay out

money for hotels will they do any repairs to houses?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I have had ridiculous questions

in the House before, but this one tops them all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, very seldom does

any minister give an answer in this House about a departmental issue such as

this particular one without checking with officials and having a report done on

the matter. That was done in this particular case. I said I would report back to

the House, and I will, on the details of that particular case in Bellevue.

As to the criteria used to determine whether or not repairs

are effected on a particular house, it is an Emergency Repair Program. That is

what it is called. But, Mr. Speaker, we don't just restrict it to emergency

repairs because we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister may continue. I was referring to the

level of noise.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: We don't just restrict it to emergency

repairs. We do have situations, Mr. Speaker, where people with mental or

physical handicaps have to be accommodated by way of restructuring a particular

dwelling. A room may have to be added or remodelling may have to be done to

accommodate individuals because of their circumstances and their disabilities or

their health. So it is not just restricted. We don't just do emergency repairs

to accommodate our clients. But the program he speaks of is indeed an Emergency

Repair Program. We are continuing to approve situations where the necessary

repairs have to be effected, because of the conditions and the situation that

the clients are living in, particularly this time of the year, Mr. Speaker,

where repairs have to be effected to make sure people are living in suitable

accommodations.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, what is ridiculous is the

minister coming into the House and saying, as he said on November 4, that if

there is a need for emergency repairs, furnace repairs or boiler repairs,

whatever it happens to be, no case is delayed unnecessarily. As soon as the

approvals can be given and the inspection carried out, the work is done. Mr.

Speaker, why is the minister coming into the House and making a statement about

that when his own officials are sending out memoranda saying: We are not

approving hot water tanks, and water and sewer hookups are doubtful?

Now, Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to be honest and

forthright with this House and admit that his department is taking the position

that hot water is not necessary for people to live, that water and sewer hookups

are unnecessary for people to live in this Province, and that his department has

cut back on the Emergency Repair Program to the extent indicated by the

memoranda being sent out by his own department? Now, how can the minister come

into this House and tell the people and the members of this House things that

are false?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that any

repairs that are necessary of an emergency nature - and an emergency nature is

where people have undue hardship - if repairs are needed, they are done, Mr.

Speaker, and approved. To identify a particular memo that an individual would

take literally, that we don't always approve hot water tanks, that is quite

true. We don't always approve them. But, Mr. Speaker, if we have a situation

where the hot water tank should be approved and it is deemed necessary and the

staff recommend it, it is approved.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Recently, I understand, there was a piece of equipment sent to

the town council of Cartwright. Would the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation confirm that this piece of equipment was checked by the mechanics

in his department and, if so, was the piece of equipment suitable to be used on

the public roads in the Province?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this situation in the community

of Cartwright, where they are experiencing some difficulty with their own

equipment and keeping the roads clear, my department was contacted, as I believe

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was contacted. Really this

matter is within the jurisdiction of the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs because these roads are local roads within the town boundaries. In an

effort to assist the community, however, Mr. Speaker, my department had a look

at the equipment that we had on hand and equipment that was surplus or no longer

required in the service of the department.

After that review was made, this piece of equipment was

offered to the Town of Cartwright in order to alleviate the circumstances in

which they found themselves. The Town - as far as I knew, we made no

representation that it was a brand new piece of equipment. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

as all hon. members will know, once a piece of equipment becomes surplus to the

department's needs, it is hardly in ideal shape. So, although the department was

under no obligation, none whatsoever, to offer this piece of equipment to the

Town of Cartwright, in an effort to relieve their situation, we did offer this

piece of equipment to the Town; and it may, in fact, need some repairs, but I

would suggest, it is up to the Town, in consultation with Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to acquire the funds to effect any repairs that may be

required to the equipment.

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

on a supplementary.

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

I understand that when this piece of equipment arrived, it

had bad tires, the fuel line was leaking, hydraulic fluid was running all over

the place and actually, this piece of equipment is an environmental hazard to

the community.

For years, Mr. Speaker, I have been saying that

businesspeople in this Province have been sending junk to the Labrador Coast.

Now, is it a policy of this minister to be sending useless junk to the people in

Cartwright and other places in Labrador?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the department

was under no, no obligation to do anything. In an effort to assist the town in

correcting their problems, we offered them this piece of equipment. We did not

say the equipment was in excellent shape. As I indicated, once the equipment

became surplus to our needs, obviously, it may have required mechanical repairs.

The Town, if they find the equipment is not satisfactory, should consult with

the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs or use their own funds to

effect repairs on the equipment to alleviate their problems.

Mr. Speaker, we did what we could to assist the Town, even

though we were under no obligation to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Justice.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa, at the hearings on the

Aboriginal people, Mr. Justice Rejean Paul of the Quebec Superior Court, when he

was addressing the Royal Commission, said he thinks the Criminal Code should be

amended to allow a council of elders to replace judges who normally preside over

court cases in Native communities.

I ask the minister, would he agree that in the Native

communities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, this would probably be

a much better working system than we presently have?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has raised a

most interesting and important question. I didn't hear Mr. Justice Rejean Paul's

remarks, or have I heard of them. I had hoped to be at that conference, indeed,

had planned to be there. Indeed, the Globe and Mail yesterday said I was there,

but given the fact the House is so fascinating, I just couldn't tear myself

away.

Let me come back to the substance of the question: Firstly,

the Criminal Code is federal, as my hon. friend knows - it is within the

jurisdiction of Parliament. Secondly, I would want to refrain from any

substantive comment until I had

a) seen Mr. Justice Paul's comments and

b) perhaps had an opportunity to -

PREMIER WELLS: Madame Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Madame Justice, I am sorry; I think my hon.

friend said Mr. Justice, but Madame Justice - a judge, either way, a judge is a

judge is a judge.

MR. TOBIN: You should have known (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That could be, I was only following my hon.

friend from Torngat. I assumed that for once in his life, he had got it right.

Now, if I can come back to the question. It was a serious

question and I will deal with it, unlike the blabbermouths over there. I would

like to see the comments; I would like to be able to ponder them and deal with

them. But I will say to my hon. friend, and I think he would concur, Mr.

Speaker, any of us who are trying to become familiar with the issues involved in

the Aboriginal justice dossier, to use a very neutral term, will feel that the

system presently in effect in Canada has serious deficiencies in it. Now, I am

not sure I know how to improve it. I am not sure even that I am aware of the

range of suggestions. I share the hon. gentleman's concern. The system isn't

working. Now, how we should improve it and who should improve it are matters

that will require a great deal of study and effort. I wish I had been at the

conference, because I think, and we are all awaiting the Aboriginal Commission

Report, it will address this, I understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

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

Extern, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to

question your decisions in any way, but I want to point out to the hon. House

that there are seventeen of us on this side of the House, including the hon.

Member for St. John's East.

On three successive days, he has been recognized and had the

privilege to ask questions. Mr. Speaker, I can see preference being given to the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition and that is where I feel, Mr. Speaker, it

should end. This morning there were several of us, at least three of us standing

and again, the Member for St. John's East was recognized. To me, Mr. Speaker, he

is only one member in this House and perhaps, where we are sitting it is harder

to see us, but, Mr. Speaker, I think it could be done on a fairer and more

equitable basis. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning but pointing out that

some of us over here feel that we should at least have one right in seventeen.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

commend the hon. member for having the courage to say openly what he believes

and I give him full marks for that, unlike many of his colleagues who snipe at

the Chair without the courage to state their point candidly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back. There is no point of

order. The Speaker, recognizes whomever he thinks best. Let me make the point to

my hon. friend for St. John's East Extern, that any member of the House, not a

member of the Ministry, is entitled to ask questions; any member including my

hon. friends on this side who are not members of the Ministry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say, to the point of order, it is

entirely up to the Speaker whom he recognizes; the hon. gentleman believes that

the Speaker is being unfair which is what he is saying, then he has a remedy, in

fact he has two remedies. He can either attend upon Your Honour privately and

raise a concern as any member may at any time. The Speaker is our Speaker,

elected by the House to run our House and we should all support him in doing

that, or, the hon. gentleman has another remedy, he can lay a motion down on the

Table of the House in the proper way and we shall deal with it and address it,

but, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order and furthermore, you cannot, it is

unparliamentary for one to criticize the Chair in the way in which the hon.

gentleman has done, he is entirely out of order.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for St. John's East Extern,

prefaced his remarks very well; I do not think he was casting aspersions upon

Your Honour. I think he had a concern that as a Private Member of this

Legislature as an Opposition member that he wanted to express and he did that,

but I want to tell the Government House Leader that there could be times when he

could rise and express his opinion here without it being totally filled with

sarcasm. Everything he said we know; a number of us have been here for a fair

length of time, we know that; but the member expressed an opinion and I am sure

His Honour will listen to what he had to say and do whatever he sees fit. One

thing I want to point out to him is that the Speaker, was not elected.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I do not see the point where -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I do not see the point raised as a point of

order. I know the Member for St. John's East Extern may feel as the Member for

St. John's East does on many occasions that he would like to get recognized when

he isn't. I think we all have that situation in the House, I myself, have on

many occasions felt, not necessarily when Your Honour was in the Chair, but when

I was standing prior to other members and not being recognized, that sometimes I

feel that I should have been recognized before that, but that is, I think part

of the way things work here in the House. I do not see it as a point of order

and I think, from time to time I have been told that I get recognized not as

often as I should, so it is a question I suppose of opinion.

I know the Speaker has a duty to be fair to all hon. members

and to give an opportunity for all members representing their particular parties

in the House an opportunity to have that party's views represented in Question

Period and in debate. I do notice however, from time to time that when I am

speaking, hon. members like to jab and shout and yell and try to shout me down,

but I understand that they have to act that way sometimes when a single member

is trying to be heard above the noise of the other parties, as they are doing

right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, there is no point of

order, but for the purposes of the House and all hon. members, I do keep a going

account of Question Period. Now my records - and the Chair is not going to

debate, I am not permitted to debate, but I think the hon. member did mention

that the Member for St. John's East was on three days consecutively. My notes

show and I could be wrong but my notes indicate that the - as I said I could be

wrong with my tally - but my notes indicate that the Member for St. John's East

was not on Question Period yesterday. So, it was not three days in succession. I

could go right on through telling when the Member for St. John's East was on and

when the Member for St. John's East was not on.

I realize, having been sitting in the place, how difficult it

is to get on Question Period and how members sometimes feel they are

discriminated against. I felt that way many times in my lifetime and I can

appreciate the hon. members feelings. But the Chair will attempt to do it as

fairly as possible, as I have done in the past, and I can say to the Member for

St. John's East Extern that his words have not fallen on deaf ears. I did want

to say to hon. members this morning, because it was rather noisy on both sides

of the House and I have said it before, how there seems to be a tendency towards

meetings, particularly on this side of the House. Maybe it is because ministers

do not get a chance to see members or whatever and when people see them they

want to meet and it does make it difficult when we get the noise level building

because then as the noise level builds everyone tends to join in and then you

are in a situation where you cannot control it.

A couple of things that I have noticed, and I was going to

read to hon. members this morning, and I say this because I noticed a lot of

members breaking this rule and because I have not wanted to interfere with the

speaker, that is the person who is speaking, because again when I was speaking

and I was developing a trend of thought and I was in my best eloquence I did not

want to be interfered with and I recognize that to. I want to read from our

standing orders 11C which I have noticed a couple of people have broken in the

past day or so: when a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and

the Chair. I want to also read another, the same standing order, 11D, and I want

to read this piece and I want everybody to listen: No member may pass between

the Chair and the Table, that is here between the Chair and the Table, nor

between the Chair and the Mace, when the Mace has been taken off the Table by

the Sergeant at Arms. So I want hon. members to remember that, Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I was not standing to be

recognized by the Chair but I was going to seek the consent of the House to do a

presentation of a petition but thank you for recognizing me all the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Well the Chair recognizes anybody when they

are standing.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the 25th, the

hon. Member for Humber East asked whether any wall coverings for the Premier's

office were manufactured in Spain. Earlier in the week or last week somebody had

also asked the question as to whether they cost $80,000 and earlier somebody had

inquired about the door knobs costing $600, so Mr. Speaker, I undertook to get

the answers to these questions. Now, I have answered in the past some general

enquiries in relation to the renovations that are going on so I will not need to

repeat those. I will just deal with those specific items. I caused a full

examination to be made by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

and they checked the local contractor responsible for the supply and

installation and there is no evidence whatsoever of any materials being

manufactured in Spain. Certainly none were ordered from any Spanish agent or

manufacturer. This appears to be the latest in a series of irresponsible

fabrication from the opposition on the Confederation Building reconstruction -

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Japan?

PREMIER WELLS: None from Japan either, as far as I know.

For example, the opposition members tried to suggest that

some $80,000 worth of wall coverings were being put on my personal office. The

estimated cost of the wall coverings in my personal office, estimated by the

Department of Public Works and Services, is $1,500.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: In fact, Mr. Speaker, all of the wall

coverings in the eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh floors will not cost $80,000.

All of them together will not cost $80,000.

Mr. Speaker, the other falsehood that has been perpetrated is

the suggestion that somehow there is a $600 brass doorknob. The truth is that

there are no $600 doorknobs; there are no $60 doorknobs; there are no $6

doorknobs, that I know of, anywhere else in the entire area. It is a complete

figment of somebody's mischievous imagination.

Now if there are any further misrepresentations, Mr. Speaker,

I will deal with them as they arise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my constituents in the Goulds, and some of the

constituents in my colleague's riding, Kilbride, I would like to present a

petition signed by 3,134 residents, and signed by forty-nine businesses.

I think the prayer of the petition very aptly describes its

intent, and I will read the prayer of the petition:

We, the undersigned residents and taxpayers of Ward 6, hereby

publicly express our disgust with the whole way our areas were amalgamated to

St. John's. We disdain the undemocratic and calculated way amalgamation was

brought about without any say from us, the residents. Russia is moving toward

democracy - it appears we are progressing in the opposite direction in this

Province.

Initially, Petty Harbour, Mount Pearl, Goulds, and Metro Area

were to be included in this amalgamation process. Why were we the only ones

amalgamated? Maybe we should have been more vocal last year.

We especially find it hard to accept now that our taxes have

virtually doubled and we find that there is no money to upgrade our services to

city standards. Businesses have been hit with a crippling blow that they had not

anticipated or budgeted for.

Recently we received absolute confirmation that in past

amalgamation, taxes were phased in over five years for the residents of

Kilbride, Shea Heights, and Airport Heights. Why were we not given the same

consideration?

Shortage of money and hard economic times we know exist;

however, we will not accept the reasons for your refusal to phase in our taxes,

especially after we learned that Grand Falls - Windsor were offered x-number of

millions of dollars to amalgamate. Given the other fact that Goulds has received

no capital funding from the Province for three straight years, we wonder about

government fairness.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not write it. I am only reading it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: A Liberal has been defined by Robert Frost

as a person too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: May I continue, Mr. Speaker?

So now, after having put up with enough neglect and

unfairness, we respectfully submit this petition in support of the St. John's

City Council in its recent endeavours to go back to you, our provincial

government, for another look at the situation, hoping you will treat us more

humanely this time by granting the funds to phase in our taxes too.

We also demand that you offer funding to provide the same

basic, humane services like water and sewer that are so badly needed by many

residents in our areas.

Our roads are deplorable and hardly fit to drive on. This is

a sad commentary to make in 1992 for such a large community sitting on the

doorsteps of the capital city, when many smaller outport towns are much better

off. We have been paying property taxes for ten years. Mr. Speaker, the

residents of the Goulds have been discriminated against by this government, in

an area that is not on the doorstep of the capital city but is part of the

capital city of this Province. The part that falls within my district, Mr.

Speaker, does not have any water and sewer whatsoever, not a single household,

250 households and no water and sewer. In fact, they truck in water to the

residents in this area to drink. They also have a very severe sewage problem.

There is a high water table in certain areas and it is posing a great degree of

hardship on people.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the roads in the area are in very poor

condition and far from city standards. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the single biggest

problem in my district lies in what is referred to as the Lower Goulds and that

part of Ward 6. Now, the members of this government don't treat it too

seriously. I consider it very serious that people have sewage problems and have

to bail out septic tanks by hand, with the exorbitant costs today assigned to

disposal of sewage, and have to truck water in. If the hon. members had to

experience that they would know what it is all about and they would be a little

more humane and sympathetic.

The residents are not asking for something that other parts

of this Province did not receive. They are asking for the same opportunity to be

given a phase in that this government gave other municipalities that were

incorporated during their term of office.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today and congratulate the

member for Ferryland in presenting this petition on behalf of the residents of

the Goulds, Mr. Speaker, some in his district and some in mine. I want to

support the petition wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, if you can remember, when the amalgamation issue

was about to be shoved down the throats of the people of the Goulds, we did

present several other petitions in this House with the residents of the Goulds

pleading with the government not to force them to join the City of St. John's

because they could not afford the increase in taxes. Mr. Speaker, the tax rate

in the Goulds went from 6.5 to 11 mils. So one would expect that because of this

increase in taxes we would get almost a doubling of the services in the Goulds.

Mr. Speaker, the argument that the former minister made for

amalgamation was to increase the efficiency of this region, to make things more

efficient. Now, what happened in the Goulds, before amalgamation, was that we

had a contract for garbage collection which was ten times more efficient than in

the City of St. John's, and we also have a contract for snow clearing which is

much less expensive than in the City of St. John's. So the efficiencies that we

brought into the Goulds by amalgamating with St. John's was to increase the cost

of snow clearing and to increase the cost of garbage collection, if the city had

followed through with the same services that the Goulds are paying for. What we

have today, two years after amalgamation, Mr. Speaker, is the same contractor

collecting the garbage in the Goulds because it is more efficient than the City

of St. John's. We have the same contract for snow clearing in the Goulds because

it is more efficient and cost effective than the City of St. John's. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if there is ever any argument that could be made for the people of the

Goulds to have a tax phase in, that in itself would be an argument.

Mr. Speaker, in the Goulds today they have no greater

services except fifty or sixty council trucks driving around all day looking

down into the sewer lines and running cameras through the sewer lines, which was

only done six or seven years ago. The sewer lines haven't changed. All that was

done before, Mr. Speaker, when the former town council was in there and they had

some trouble with their sanitary and storm sewers. All these camera tests were

done, and all the video tapes are still available. Yet the City of St. John's

has to go in and do them again. That is the increased efficiency that we got

with amalgamation in the Goulds, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a precedent in this Province, only since

1985, when there was an amalgamation - there was an amalgamation of Airport

Heights in 1982 and there was an amalgamation of Kilbride and Shea Heights

around 1985. On both occasions it was deemed necessary to phase in the taxes

over a five-year period, 20 per cent each year until people got up to the full

tax limit. Mr. Speaker, this was done to ease the burden on the City of St.

John's and to help the people arrange their mortgages and their personal

finances so that they could stand this 100 per cent - well, 85 per cent it

happened to be in the Goulds - 85 per cent increase in their taxes.

Now they are not finished with that in the Goulds yet. The

Goulds still has to be assessed to get up to the city standard of assessment.

Whatever the date is in the city, of eighty-eight or eighty-nine, the Goulds is

four years behind that. So the Goulds again will have to get another fairly

major - probably another 20 per cent at least - tax increase in the next year or

so when the assessments are finished in that way.

Mr. Speaker, that is the efficient amalgamation that the

former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs inflicted on the people of

the Goulds. They have one simple request. They know amalgamation is not going to

be reversed. They are aware of that. They would like that, but they know that is

not going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Listen to the Member for Shea Heights who

drives through the Goulds every day on his way to Tors Cove to spend $25,000 of

taxpayers money, when he should be living in his district and spending $6,000 a

year like I do. He knows what is true and what is not true.

The people in the Goulds would like to see amalgamation

reversed, and if you want to put out a plebiscite today with it, I am sure you

would get 85 per cent support for it, and down in Wedgewood Park you would get

more.

The Member for St. John's South might think he knows a lot,

but he does not know the Goulds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I just say once more, Mr. Speaker, that I

plead on behalf of the residents of the Goulds to have this government take

another look at the phase in of taxes for those people, because they deserve it,

the same as people in other areas that were amalgamated since 1982.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, when the amalgamation was

complete, and included the area of the Goulds which the member speaks of in his

petition presented to the House, prior to that time the Goulds was in a

financial situation and a management situation which was amongst the worst in

the Province - if not the worst in the Province.

Probably technically it would have been bankrupt several

years earlier had action been taken, and could have easily, at many times, been

taken over by the government and run by a commission or a commissioner or

whatever. So it had serious, serious problems. We do have to acknowledge that

the Goulds does have conditions which need to be addressed.

The City of St. John's has the power within their

jurisdiction, within their act, to phase in taxes if they so wish. They also

have the jurisdiction to decide how soon services can be brought to a particular

area and how soon they would be brought. It was never, ever thought that

services would be put into the Goulds or any other amalgamated area overnight.

That was never, ever thought. Nobody ever said that the Goulds would get

services immediately - as indeed we cannot provide services immediately

throughout this Province in many, many communities that have a similar

circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, it is within the power of the City of St. John's

to take action to start completion of water and sewer, or roads problems, or

whatever it happens to be, on a priority basis if they so wish, or to delay it

and do it very slowly if they so wish. It is their prerogative.

They also have the ability to vary the taxes for people who

have services versus people who do not. We have provision for tax rates that are

different for people throughout the Province, and many communities charge a

separate assessment for water and/or sewer. It is very common.

Mr. Speaker, before I forget, I want to correct an error that

was made by the member when he presented his petition about Grand Falls -

Windsor, because I was the minister at the time who put that together and

certainly completed the period of time, and completed the process where Grand

Falls - Windsor came together as one community. There were no special deals

made. I am not blaming the hon. member. I realize he was just reading what was

given him to read in the prayer of the petition, but no special deals were made.

All we did was honour commitments that were put in place by the previous

government to complete certain roads work and certain commitments to bring

Windsor up to a standard that had been recognized before we took office. We

simply agreed to complete those works as they were agreed to.

One thing we did do is that we said, with the phase in of the

new grants program, we will acknowledge the fact that this arrangement has been

made prior to that and we will give you the better of the two arrangements, the

new grants versus the old grants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member, when he talks about

water and sewer and the need for water and sewer in St. John's, that in my

district, for example, which borders on Mount Scio - Bell Island, we have some

120 families and businesses, actually more than that, but let us call it 120

families and businesses on the Kenmount Road who have wells and septic tanks,

wells that dry up in the summertime and they have to have water delivered to

them by water trucks, they have night soil pick up at night. On Shea Heights, we

have people without any water and sewer, granted a very costly venture to put it

there, but it is costly practically everywhere, we are living on a rock after

all and that is in the city.

Now those people have been without those services a lot

longer in terms of St. John's - Kenmount Road and Shea Heights, and I am just

picking those two out, they are not the only ones. I can pick other people in

St. John's districts who still do not have - a lot of people do not believe it

when I tell them, it is hard to believe that in St. John's we have hundreds of

houses without water and sewer services, now that is hard to believe but it is

true, so, Mr. Speaker, the Goulds is not unique and I am not trying to downplay

the importance of servicing for the Goulds, but I do not want anybody to think

that the Goulds is the only part of St. John's that has a need for servicing. I

have had constituents of mine call me and say that they want emphasis put on

their water and sewer in terms of a priority, so if we are going to consider a

priority at City Hall, we have to look at those people who have been part of St.

John's, in many cases for a century or more, certainly.

Yes, we have added areas to the city, the Goulds is probably

- well certainly Wedgwood Park is not in need of any servicing and water and

sewer, it has modern services, it is as good as any part of St. John's as far as

services and facilities and amenities are concerned, but I do not want to say

that I do not acknowledge the fact that the Goulds needs to have emphasis put on

it, to be looked at, but, Mr. Speaker, it is not unique, it is not the only part

of the city and the City of St. John's has the power as I said earlier, to deal

with the Goulds, to decide upon a phase in of taxes if they so wish.

If they think a tax break is warranted, if they so wish and

they want to reflect a tax break because of the fact that they do not see

services as up-to-date and as modern if you like, pipe services in the ground

vis--vis other homes in the city, well they can have a differential in taxes if

they so wish, that is in their power, but, Mr. Speaker, it is not in our power -

well I suppose it is if we want to take the power -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up, sorry.

MR. GULLAGE: - but we should not impose our authority

upon a municipality that has a mandate to do these jobs and this work

themselves.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition on behalf of nearly 600 people,

594 actually, whose prayer is addressed to the government, through the House of

Assembly of course, and it says:

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has some of

the most unspoiled, natural beauty in Canada; and

WHEREAS we the undersigned wish to both preserve and conserve

this natural heritage, we petition and urge the Government of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately enact legislation which will prevent

the importing and incinerating of garbage at the proposed site at Long Harbour,

Placentia Bay, Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, less people think that most of the

opposition to this project is coming from people here in the St. John's area,

this particular petition was initiated by the Provincial Wildlife Federation,

and what is interesting about it is that the 600 names as far as I can tell,

they are all from the district of the Strait of Belle Isle up in the Northern

Peninsula, the former Minister of Justice's old district. People -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What did I say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. Well he is a former minister but not a

former Minister of Justice. In any event, Mr. Speaker, that is not the important

issue, what is important is that 600 people from the Strait of Belle Isle, from

Roddickton, Englee, Croque, Main Brook all these places have signed this

particular petition.

Now it is basically a follow-up to the petition I presented

yesterday with 6,200 names or thereabouts and I understand the Member for St.

John's East has a petition with a sizable number of names on it, and I know

yesterday the Member for Humber West presented a petition with 300 or 400 names

on it, from Corner Brook, so it is pretty obvious and clear or at least it

should be to the Minister of Environment and Lands by now, despite her comments,

or the comments attributed to her, at least, where she didn't think there was

much of a fuss about this anymore. It is pretty obvious these days that the

people of this Province are certainly not in favour and they have spoken out

loudly and clearly in many ways, so that there shouldn't be any measure of doubt

on the part of the minister and the government that the people of this Province

do not want and will not accept economic development projects that involve the

importation of garbage from other jurisdictions into this Province, for the

purpose of incineration, in particular.

Mr. Speaker, we heard yesterday from SNAGG in Placentia,

SNAGG in St. John's, the Coalition Against Incineration, Action Environment.

Today, we have heard from the Provincial Federation of Wildlife. Yesterday,

there were people from the Corner Brook area, private citizens who presented

their petitions. And on Sunday of this week, at 2:00 p.m., in front of

Confederation Building, there will be a public demonstration by whoever wishes

to participate, to show their displeasure with this particular project.

Now, there are only two or three points, really, that need to

be harped on and need to be repeated. I noticed yesterday, in defence, or in

response to the petitions, the Minister of Justice talked and made a great to-do

about the fact that the Federal Government have provided a grant of $1 million

to do this study.

The question that we can never seem to get answered by the

government is whether this government objected to those funds being provided.

Surely, the Minister of Environment and Lands and the officials in the

Department of Environment and Lands had some consultations with the other

agencies before this matter proceeded, and if they did not agree with it, Mr.

Speaker, then it was perfectly appropriate for them at that time to indicate

that they were not satisfied to allow this to continue, and that is all they had

to say. Because the jurisdiction and the responsibility for this particular

project lies with this Government of the Province of Newfoundland, not the

Federal Government. All they had to do was indicate that they weren't prepared

to see this kind of project proceed and I am sure that would have put an end to

the funding.

The other thing that the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology kept shouting across the House yesterday, and interrupting, was: Did

you get an application? Well, Mr. Speaker, the question that has to be asked is,

what difference does it make if you have the application? The question that is

being asked is: Does this government have a policy at all, to address the issue

of whether or not you agree with the importation of garbage into this Province

for economic development projects? That is the question: Does this government

have a policy at all? Do they agree with importation of large bargeloads of

garbage coming into this Province from New York for the purpose of incineration?

That is the question. That is the issue.

Now, if the government had a policy to address that

particular issue, and if they were to say up front to the people of this

Province: Yes, we have a policy, we do not agree with the importation of garbage

from other jurisdictions into this Province for the purpose of development

projects, then that would be the end of it, that is all they have to say. But,

instead, they have been wishy-washy; one or two backbenchers have stood and

tried to say that they are against it. The Premier says he is personally opposed

to it, but, you know, at the same time, we have to listen to what goes on in

terms of the studies and all the rest of it.

Well, the point of the argument by all the people in the

Province is that it is time for this government to put an end to this issue.

That is what the people want. It is pretty loud and clear. And all the

government has to do is respond, saying: We do not agree. This is our policy: We

do not agree with the importation of garbage from other jurisdictions into this

Province. Because, aside from the health and safety issues, there is the whole

notion of self-esteem, Mr. Speaker, and that is what has a lot of people's blood

boiling on this particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Talk about a Don Quixote, Mr. Speaker! -

chasing phantom windmills while I - poor old me - am left to clean up the mess

that they never tried to deal with in this Province. I have been focusing my

attention, Mr. Speaker, on issues related to the cleanup of Long Harbour, which

were left unaddressed by them, Come by Chance, which were left unaddressed by

them. I have been trying to deal with how we are going to do something about the

litter problem in the Province, the 80 million pop tins that are found in the

ditches. I am trying to deal with some real issues that are present and on my

table at this time. I do not have, as I said the other day, this crystal ball.

When you tell the truth, Mr. Speaker, to quote Churchill, you make them howl,

and I notice a lot of howling lately. Furthermore, I have never in my lifetime

as a citizen of this Province or as a member of this House, heard of ACOA ever

coming to ask us if we approved of something they were doing. I mean, that is

about - that almost made me laugh.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never asked.

MS. COWAN: My goodness, I mean, how far are we going to

go. The issue of my - what I said in The Evening Telegram was totally taken out

of context. I suppose it was a great pleasure for the Opposition, that it was

taken out of context, because it gives them the opportunity to tie up the

business of this House with petitions for hours and hours and hours and keep us

from getting to legislation that has to deal with car wrecks, for example,

another thing they never had the guts to deal with.

My job is to wait until an application comes. As I said, I

have too much to do, looking after what they left behind, to sit here waiting

and waiting and waiting and doing nothing but thinking: Oh my, oh my, what am I

going to do? When is it going to come? Oh no, oh no. I have to be addressing

what was left to me to address by this last crowd who seem to have some sort of

thing about the environment, that it wasn't publicly acceptable to do anything

about the environment. So, Mr. Speaker, I will, as a person, who has been given

the responsibility to look after this environment in the Province, continue to

do my job as legislated. If and when this phantom appears on my desk, I will act

as is required of me by the law of this land.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which they put in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard not to make some comments about

what the minister said, but I am going to try my best to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is an example of

why I cannot do it. Mr. Speaker, we have the Minister of Health, the Minister of

Development and the Minister of Transportation of this Province laughing at this

issue. Mr. Speaker, it is not funny. This is not a funny issue, this is very

serious, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate the member for St. John's South on

the stand he has taken on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I commend him for doing that, Mr.

Speaker, because he went against everyone on his side of the House to do that. I

congratulate the member for Humber West. I am proud of him for standing up and

presenting the petition yesterday against this, and speaking against it. Some

people will get up in this House to present a petition for political reasons and

try to skate around the issue, but the member for Humber West yesterday said

that he was against it and he spoke against it. I commend him for that because

he knows his government is trying desperately to get this incinerator in this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

I also condemn the Federal Government for spending almost $1

million on a feasibility study. I, personally, condemn them for doing it. It

should never have been done, it should never have been considered, and I told

Mr. Crosbie that, personally, Mr. Speaker. It should never have been done in the

first place and it is a disgrace that that money has been spent. A million

dollars in this Province could go a long way to create jobs, not to create a

dump. Mr. Speaker, I cannot let it pass by not pointing out what the Minister of

Environment said in this House only a week or so ago, when somebody - it might

have been the Member for St. John's East, I am not sure - brought up the issue

of the dump in Long Harbour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It was the Member for Harbour Main. They

brought up the issue of the dump in Long Harbour, whether we should consider it

or not, and the Member for Harbour Main pointed out that thousands and thousands

of Newfoundlanders have indicated that they do not wish to have this imported

garbage brought into our Province.

Now, we didn't have the petitions at that time, but it was

quite clear, from the meetings that the groups have had throughout the Province,

it was quite clear from the media coverage, from the Letters to the Editor, that

there were thousands of Newfoundlanders who wished not to have it. But our

Minister of Environment, the person who is supposed to be protecting our

environment, says she is not so sure - she said it in this House of Assembly and

it is in our Hansard that she is not so sure that there are thousands of people

against this garbage coming to Newfoundland. Now, I don't know where she has

been.

AN HON. MEMBER: She said there was only one.

MR. R. AYLWARD: She had one letter, I believe. She said

she had one letter. I find that very hard to believe. I know she wasn't trying

to misinform this House, but she probably didn't read her mail. If she read The

Evening Telegram she would find more than that. In any given week, you would

find more than that. Mr. Speaker, I don't know why our Minister of Environment

is trying to hide away from this issue.

It is a simple issue: Do we want, in this Province, to import

garbage from other jurisdictions and burn it? That is all, it is a very simple

issue. And the answer should be, as SNAGG and the Coalition and other groups

signing petitions, have requested. They request that our Govenment today

establish a policy that says we will not do this. Now, that is fairly simple.

The Minister of Environment could do that in a Ministerial Statement in this

House of Assembly on Monday morning. The Premier could do it in this House of

Assembly any day - most quickly, on Monday morning - and that would put an end

to the question of whether we are going to import garbage from other

jurisdictions into our Province. Whether we burn it or make compost heaps of it

or whatever we do with it is another issue. We can stop this proposal

immediately. We can stop this study, we can stop the idea. Let them send it

somewhere else.

The Member for Harbour Main was telling me today of an

instance when he was in New York only recently, on Statten Island, he said. He

can't understand why they won't build an incinerator there. There was a mountain

of garbage on Statten Island. They could build an incinerator right next to it

if it was such a good deal, such a great project, and they wouldn't have to move

the garbage anywhere. They don't have to put it on barges, they don't have to

bring it to Long Harbour. If they won't do it where the garbage is, why would we

want to do it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that the

government should issue a policy statement on Monday morning saying they will

not consider such a project if it is brought before them.

MR. DOYLE: Hear, hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting

a petition this morning on behalf of 14,620 residents of the Province of

Newfoundland, on the issue of the incineration of garbage at Long Harbour.

Now, the petitioners say, Mr. Speaker, that the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the most unspoiled natural beauty in

Canada.

'We, the undersigned, wish to preserve and to conserve this

natural heritage. We petition and urge the Government of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately enact legislation which will prevent

the importing of garbage at the proposed site at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay,

Newfoundland.'

Mr. Speaker, that is a very simple and straightforward

request to prevent the importing of garbage to Newfoundland and Labrador for

incineration at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay.

I listened to the Minister of Environment and Lands this

morning complaining that the people on this side of the House were trying to tie

up the business of the House by presenting petitions. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

14,620 people from all over this Province who signed this petition - I will

outline some of the places for the House in a moment - would be appalled to hear

that the Minister of Environment and Lands is complaining that the business of

the House is being tied up in presenting their views to this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is the work of two individuals who

organized the petition, and co-ordinated it with a number of different

individuals and groups across the Province. We are dealing with the Mount Pearl

Senior High Environment Club, the Bishop's College Environment Club, and

environment clubs all over the Province.

We have, in this petition, 476 signatures from Trepassey, St.

Shotts, Portugal Cove South, and Biscay Bay. We have signatures from St.

Anthony, Fermeuse, Aquaforte, Ferryland, Cape Broyle, from Labrador, Mr.

Speaker, from Williams Harbour. We have signatures from Burgeo, Bird Cove, Black

Duck Cove, Forresters Point, Bartletts Harbour, Brig Bay, King's Cove, Keels in

Bonavista Bay, Catalina, Stock Cove, in Labrador, Postville. We have signatures

from Williams Harbour, Long Cove, Norman's Cove, Trinity Bay, Random Island,

Sweet Bay, Charleston, Little Catalina - more signatures from Keels. We have

hundreds and hundreds of signatures from Foxtrap, Manuels, Conception Bay South

area. We have signatures from Corner Brook, Centreville, Trinity, Indian Bay,

Wareham, Wesleyville. There are signatures here from Point Leamington,

Hermitage, Port au Port, Musgrave Harbour, Churchill Falls, Labrador,

Stephenville, Pasadena, Gambo, Gander, Nain, Labrador - more from Carmanville -

Comfort Cove, St. George's, Pool's Island, Wesleyville, Twillingate, Bell

Island, Grand Le Pierre, Stephenville Crossing, King's Cove, Stock Cove,

Lewisporte, Comfort Cove, Little Bay Islands, Baie Verte, Trout River, Woody

Point, Raleigh, St. Anthony, Rocky Harbour, Pollards Point, Sop's Arm, Jackson's

Arm, Cupids, Bonavista, Daniel's Harbour, Summerville, King's Cove, Stock Cove,

as I mentioned before, New Chelsea, Harbour Grace, Flat Bay - St. George's

District, Robert's Arm, Pilley's Island, Triton, Briton - all over the Province

of Newfoundland.

I know that the Minister of Environment and Lands has said

that we are taking up hours and hours of this House, but these are communities

all over the Province. Many are from St. John's, of course, and Mount Pearl,

Flatrock, and Conception Bay South - all the areas around here - but every

community represented here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: - has people who are opposing this, and it is

not right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WARREN: Hey, hey, sit down!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Is the hon. minister yielding to the hon. the Member for St.

John's South? The hon. the Member for St. John's South is the only one standing

at the moment.

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

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

I want to compliment the Member for St. John's East for being

the messenger, because that is all he has been in this whole thing - the

messenger.

MR. DOYLE: Don't shoot the messenger, 'Tom'.

MR. MURPHY: That is right. I agree with the hon. the

Member for Harbour Main; however, when we stand in our place we should try to

understand the reason why this particular project is not viable - why it has to

be a concern for every citizen of this Province. We need to know that if we are

going to make a solid decision. It isn't good enough - when you talk to the

people in Long Harbour, the people in Placentia and Jerseyside, who have an

opportunity for employment, they need more than that type of rhetoric that the

Member for St. John's East just got on with, they need a little more than that -

MR. GOVER: What rhetoric? It was only a geography lesson.

MR. MURPHY: - a geography lesson or whatever it was

because they have lost - and I know the Member for St. John's East Extern, who

is very concerned about people; they have lost their livelihood out in the

Placentia area; they have seen their industry dry up on them.

Now the industry that was there was not environmentally

friendly. It is not today, it is closed down and the water table that runs under

that slide pit, is a great concern to all the people out there as that pollutant

constantly and constantly runs out in the Long Harbour and disperses with the

tide all over Placentia Bay.

Now, the same people with the same money, in order to look at

the situation of their responsibility to clean up the phosphorus problem, have

come up with a new solution, and simply, I say to the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern, it is a money situation on the backs of the people of

Placentia which is really sad because they are people with desperate problems.

But how desperate do we need to be when we are asked to take into our Province

the waste of one of the largest cities in North America, uncontrolled waste, no

way in the ways of the world, Mr. Speaker, of controlling what goes in those

containers. Now, when you burn aluminum, when you burn different metals, when

you have a chemical action such as that which would take place at Long Harbour,

there is no possible way to contain all the toxic materials, carcinogenic

materials that will get into the atmosphere.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now if the Member for Torngat Mountains will

listen he might learn something but it is very difficult - perhaps he should go

and have a coffee; go and have a coffee and do the House a favour. When these

emissions get into the air, you can only contain and scrub out or take out in

the fly ash, so much, you can only hold on to so much. That is the concern, and

even in the material that they can contain, as I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

you have to do something with it.

You take now a condensed problem, put it in drums, seal it

up, put it in silos, you do something with it - you have to do something with

it. If it stays in this Province, eventually it will find itself into our

environment, whether it be in the landfill and/or the watertable or in the

atmosphere, it will impact without question on our people's health; it will

impact on the wildlife and wildlife health; it will impact on the vegetation,

and if anybody doesn't believe the devastation that the phosphorus emission has

caused over the years, go out and walk around Long Harbour. One of my favourite

places to go trouting is devastated. We see rabbits up there that look like they

came from another planet.

MR. WARREN: That is not true.

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

would not recognize the truth if it hit him right between the eyes.

MR. WARREN: That is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave, by leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

I have only one thought in my mind pertaining to this issue.

I don't care about the technical side of it. I don't care about the monetary

side of it, if it brings in $10 million a day, if it employs 200 people, I think

it is wrong, teetotally wrong; and when I listened yesterday to the Minister of

Justice, as he got up and tried to defend the government's policy of not

bringing in some kind of legislation to say that this thing was not going to be

allowed, period, and he got up yesterday and said: we do not have an

application, we will deal with it then. Deal with it now, stand on your feet and

deal with it now and say you are going to bring in legislation where something

like this will never be allowed to happen again. That people will not have to

sign petitions, that this government and this Minister of Justice - your talking

about being slip-shoddish, glory be to goodness, Mr. Speaker, I thought he would

be an asset to the House, he is a minus to it. He is a minus to it every time he

gets up and yesterday in particular. I was amazed at a Newfoundlander, to get up

yesterday and try to hide behind his Minister of Justice portfolio, that is all

he did. Get up and be counted and say: look this will never happen in

Newfoundland and I will be the one that will instigate legislation and bring it

into the House. Then, Mr. Speaker, this morning the minister of minister's,

Madame Minister, she rose in her place and she started in talking about all she

had to do as far as tin cans were concerned, about garbage, bottles being strewn

over the highways and whatever. Well, Mr. Speaker, what a farce. That minister

should resign, she should resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: She should resign. Have the principle to get

up and say yes, yes I am no good in the position that I hold and resign.

Imagine, that minister said this morning that people should not petition this

hon. House. People should not have any say in this hon. House, have nothing to

say as far as this type of thing is concerned. That minister was disgusted that

people were jamming her air ways, were jamming her offices -

AN HON. MEMBER: She only got one call.

MR. PARSONS: - with this type of thing. That was

irrelevant - had no bearing, had no bearing on what? It has a bearing on the

health and safety and every other thing that affects every human being that

lives in Newfoundland. I am not saying Labrador because perhaps that toxic waste

or toxic smell or toxic whatever that gets into the environment, or whatever

else, we stand on principle. I for one here will never, never accept American

garbage being dumped into Newfoundland. That is what they think we are, a dump

site, a dump site without any principle on that side over there to get up -the

hon. member for St. John's South I admire. I admire him. At least he got up on

his feet and he said what he thought. Again, I admire him in a couple of ways. I

sent out a letter to all the St. John's members, that hon. member and the

Minister of Mines were the only two answers which I received from that side of

the House.

That will tell you that you do have the guts of your

conviction. At least I commend you for that but as far as the technical aspect

of this is concerned it does not matter. It is just that we are being dumped on

- are we going to sit idly by and let a bunch of nincompoops, fools, tell us

that we - did she say to Mr. Crosbie, you are talking about ACOA, I do not know

how that transpired. Did the Premier say to them do not waste the money, we are

not having it, we are bringing in legislation? Did the Minister of Justice -

MR. WARREN: The Premier told them.

MR. PARSONS: I did not tell Mr. Crosbie no, I did not

tell him. You are the governing body over there, you are the government, not us.

If we were here as the government we would have told him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: Oh, glory be - afraid. The only people

afraid around here are you people on that side. You are all afraid of the

Premier, including the Minister of Justice. The only one that stands on their

feet here are a couple of the backbenchers and the member also from Humber West.

The member from Humber West I must say that he will hold his seat because the

people out there will see that he comes up with some good suggestions. That he

stands on his own two feet.

MR. WARREN: No, on one foot.

MR. PARSONS: On one foot now but in the meantime, Mr.

Speaker, I have been wondering about the member from Bellevue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask hon. member's please for cooperation - does the

hon. member have leave? Did the hon. member ask for Leave? Does the hon. member

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he have to have unanimous consent, I

would say no.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

Just before moving on to other matters or other petitions,

whatever the case might be, I have said this several times and it is probably a

poor time to say it because a lot of hon. members are absent - and sometimes I

wonder whether hon. members know the rules or whether we disregard them. I tell

hon. members again about petitions. A petition is not a time for debate.

Although in this House we have had many debates on petitions and the Speaker

rises many times to say that there is to be no debate, which seems to me to be

an exercise in futility, and I hardly like standing up every day to say that a

petition is not a time for debate, then sit down, and the member carries on

debating the same as if the Speaker didn't stand.

I tell hon. members, there are three headings in the House

under which debate does not take place: 1) Ministerial Statements; 2) Question

Period; 3) Petitions. And debate does not take place, because, in order for

debate to take place, there must be a question before the House, and, in all

three, there is no question before the House. When a question is before the

House, then we debate it. Hon. members on both sides then get up and espouse the

question. And when there is no debate, the hon. member knows what he should do.

The Chair, as I said, didn't make the rules, the Chair tries to enforce them

and, as well, tries to be tolerant.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Order 12, the adjourned debate on Bill No.

38, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill 38. The minister is

speaking.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, now that the ranting and roaring is over, we

will get down to some sweetness and light. I would like to compliment members

opposite for some of the points they raised in the debate on this Bill 38, which

deals with the establishment of regional community health boards.

A number of questions were raised by members opposite. I will

attempt to answer them as best I can. One of the questions had to do with the

boards, themselves, and their composition. They will be somewhat similar to

hospital boards, as far as the members are concerned. There will be a number of

members appointed to these boards. We anticipate five boards. The five boards

will, at the outset, have the boundaries that are assigned to the medical

officers of health. Right now, there is a medical officer of health in the St.

John's area, one in the eastern region, one in the central region, one in the

western region and the Grenfell area. That would be four. So we are thinking

that we will go with the boundaries for the present, at least, of these areas.

I don't know if these boundaries will persist over time

because, as you may know, the government have asked a consultant to look at the

configuration of hospital boards, to see if they can be reduced to as few as

five, or something like that. We don't have that report yet; it is being worked

on, and we hope to have it early in the new year. At that time, we will be able

to see if the boundaries will be coterminous, the same boundaries for the

boards, the hospital boards-nursing home boards area as for these community

health boards. But that is not what we are going to do in the short term.

Shortly, we will be establishing these boards, and the boundaries we anticipate

will be pretty well the boundaries that are served by the medical officers of

health.

What will they do? - was another question that was raised.

What will the community health boards do? What will be their function? One of

their main functions is to serve - I should say, one of the additional functions

will be the enforcement of a single point of entry into nursing homes and

personal care homes, at least, as far as the subsidized portion of personal care

homes are concerned, or the assignment of nurses and others to people who need

care in their own homes. So, for a person who would apply for care to the board

and say: I need to get into a nursing home, the single point of entry people

will assess the case and say: Yes, your need is greater than the other person's

need, so you will have first chance for that home. That will be done on an area

basis, or the same thing is true with respect to a personal care home as far as

the subsidized places are concerned. Or if a person thinks that they would like

to have a nurse come to visit the home, or an occupational therapist or a

physiotherapist, the assignment of these people to people in their own homes or

in nursing homes or other will be done by the regional community health care

boards. Now, that is basically what we are trying to do.

I might add that most hospitals have people there who are

medically discharged but are in the hospitals waiting to leave. Sometimes these

people are there for a considerable period of time. Sometimes the numbers

approach 10 per cent which is a pretty high rate for someone that the hospital

feels they have done their work by, and they just want to use the bed for

somebody else. But the person is there with no place to go. It is quite

expensive, because it is more expensive to keep a person in a hospital than in

any other health care institution. So what we want to do is to put these

community health care boards in place so that they can help relieve the pressure

on hospitals, by approaching things in an organized way.

There is a feeling abroad that some people in nursing homes

are there and they may not be the top priority in an area. Some people feel

that. Whether it is true or not, I am not in a position to say. But as I visit

nursing homes I see quite a number of people there who don't seem to be very

sick, and we wonder if government should be paying $37,000 a year, on the

average, plus the $10,000 that the person pays there. Perhaps some people who

are not particularly ill but are in those homes could better be accommodated

somewhere else, and make the places more available to people who really need the

care.

What we are trying to do is to use community health care

boards to more appropriately provide medical care, by taking the pressure off

hospitals, by sorting the people out more appropriately into nursing homes and

personal care homes and by providing more home services to individuals in their

own homes, both nursing and health services and other services, so that the

pressure on the institutional side becomes less. Now, that is one of the main

reasons for it.

In addition to that, we are planning to roll in the present

functions of the public health units, so that the health inspection function

will be part of that unit and the infectious diseases part will be there. The

public health nurses will be rolled into that area as well and health education

disease prevention. The Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission will be part of

that as well, and mental health will be there. In other words, the functions

that are presently assigned to the public health units will be subsumed by the

regional community health care boards, as well as these new functions of single

point of entry. We believe that that will help us financially and, also, it will

be a fairer way, we think, of providing the care that people need.

I think the hon. Member for Humber East wanted some more

details about the bill, and I will admit that the amendment is very short. We

are developing the regulations to go with that now. Whether this should be

brought into legislation at some point in time, I am not sure. Perhaps it

should. What I would like to do now, though, is work with it for a while and,

when it is more firmly established - because there are certain things we are not

absolutely certain about with respect to the boundaries, for example. We want to

be fairly flexible on the boundaries so we can move rather quickly. There are

certain other things, too, that we would like to try out for a little while and

then, perhaps, we will firm it up as to just want should happen. I have some

concerns about what might go wrong if we don't do it appropriately.

A couple of members opposite, the hon. Member for St. John's

East and the hon. Member for Humber East, and I attended a conference about AIDS

some time ago held at Holy Heart of Mary. One of the concerns that was raised

there was that people with AIDS or HIV, and particularly people where the HIV

had developed into full-blown AIDS, they had problems with respect to home care

and things of that nature. I believe that it would be appropriate, once we had

these boards in place, that that would be one of the things they would address,

because this is a very serious disease and it looks like it may very well - we

do not want to be alarmists - but it may very well need more attention than it

has gotten in the past.

The hon. Member for Fogo raised a question of political

appointments, and I believe the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West was also

concerned about that. When he was Minister of Social Services, they tell me -

whether it is true or not I do not know, and I would like the member to respond,

at some point, to this - that everyone down on the Burin Peninsula was

frightened to death of him. They were paralysed with him because if they crossed

him they would never get any government favours. Did you ever hear that? I would

like for him to address that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Oh, they were frightened to death of him. If

they crossed him they would not get anything at all.

Now we are not going to operate that way, Mr. Speaker. I do

not care whether a person is a Liberal or a Progressive Conservative, or if the

odd one is the NDP, or whatever they are -

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

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked me to respond

to what he had to say, and I cannot let that go unchallenged because he is

misleading the House.

The answer is a straight 'no' and I am surprised that this

minister would construe and make such a statement to this House.

Regarding whether or not he would support a Conservative or a

Liberal, the man has been both; why should he feel any other way?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible) telling me that, so I thought I

would clarify it with him. Anyway, I appreciate the point that he made.

We will not be making appointments on the basis of political

affiliation. The problem is, though, we do not get very many suggestions from

hon. members opposite as to who should be appointed on various boards. I would

love to get their suggestions so I could appoint them, perhaps, or avoid them.

What we want on hospital boards and nursing care home boards

- whatever boards - we want good people on them. Now most of the people I know

happen to be of one political party, and if I do appoint someone who will turn

out to be that way, it is not a matter of bias on my part. It is probably

because I know they will do a good job; but there are other people who will do a

good job too. I have no intention of turning this into a political pork barrel,

and I will look into it.

The other point is, the hon. Member for Kilbride raised a few

points. He talked about the fact that he went up to one of the hospitals here

and was in an outpatients lineup for hours and hours and hours, and eventually

had to leave without having his procedure, or whatever it was he was going

through, carried out.

What I would like from the hon. member, or from any hon.

members opposite, if they do have complaints about the health care system, I

would really appreciate their coming to me and telling me about those things and

I will address those concerns. I will address any concern that any member of the

public or any hon. member here has about the health care system, any complaints.

I would like to have it so we can talk about the specifics,

because I do not know whether the hon. Member for Kilbride was talking about

something that happened ten years ago, or twenty years ago, or yesterday. It is

hard to address something unless you really know. If there are complaints, we

would like to know about them so we can go to work on them.

One or two more points I would like to respond to, the

problem was raised with respect to overgovernment, and I think it is a very fair

question. I believe it was the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes who raised this

point. Is this just another government bureaucracy that is being established? To

tell you the truth, I have fears there. We do not want to be overgoverned. If we

want to have single point of entry -

AN HON. MEMBER: We do not want to be like we were.

DR. KITCHEN: No, we do not want to be overgoverned.

If we want single point of entry, let's do it in a very

efficient and small way. We do not have to appoint many, many public servants to

handle this roll. We do what we must do, but we do not do any more.

So I do not look upon this - and I will do what I can to keep

this from becoming a large unit of government. Government has the tendency to

become bigger and bigger and bigger and that means costlier and costlier and

costlier and that means that of a given dollar, less gets out to where it should

be because a lot of it gets spent on the bureaucracy. That is the problem we had

with the School Tax Authorities, 12 per cent of the money that was raised was

going to support the authority and relatively too small an amount was actually

getting out to the people who needed it, so what I want to do now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Just hold on to your wool, here now.

The Member for Torngat Mountains raised the question of the

Grenfell Hospital. Because the northern area, it appears now, will be looked

after by the Grenfell Regional Hospital Board which also look after hospitals,

he wondered if that could be split so that north of Black Tickle and Goose Bay

and the other part of the Labrador area could be looked after by a board

separately from that, and I think that is a question that we should consider,

but I do not think we will move in that direction in the immediate future.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks on this bill and I

move second reading.

On motion, second reading of a Bill, "An Act To Amend The

Department Of Health Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee

of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 38).

MR. ROBERTS: Order 17, please Sir, Bill No. 46.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The

Licensing And Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies". (Bill No. 46).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 46 which, as you mentioned, deals with the

Licensing and Inspection of Health and Social Agencies, is a complete act to

replace

an act which was there before known as - this is the act that replaces

the act which was called the Welfare Institutions Act. Previously, we had a

Welfare Institutions Act which at one time was administered by the Department of

Social Services. In 1985, this became part of the Ministry of Health which we

formally ratified in this House the other day or is in second reading I believe,

and now we are bringing in a totally new act that has been written from the

health perspective.

I guess it is not a totally new act because most of the

provisions in it were also in the previous act, but there are certain noteworthy

things that are in this act and one of the smaller points is that, what used to

be called licensed boarding home is now called a personal care home; that is not

a very major change and we probably would not need to bring in a new act just to

make that change in terminology which is what is used, but there are certain

other things which we could mention.

The definition of health and social agencies has been

expanded to encompass a wider range of facilities. The role of the board and the

director have been clarified more specifically with appropriate responsibilities

assigned to each body; there will be a directorate and a board. The directorate

will be responsible to the board which will make certain decisions but it will

also be a directorate which will carry out the day to day work, and that is

really what is there now and all we are really doing is putting in the act what

has been going on.

The board will have the power to issue a licence and to

attach conditions to the licence and that has been more clearly defined. There

is an appeal procedure provided in the act and the provision for a hearing to be

held so that if someone loses his licence or does not get a license, there is an

appeal procedure which is important I think and there are certain other points

there.

I think what we might do, Mr. Speaker, is, I will stop

talking now and let the members Opposite have a few words about this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Party Whip, the

Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 46 is a good bill. I have read it in detail, as a matter

of fact, over the last couple of days and tried to decipher what some of it

means. It is a little bit complicated in some areas, but I couldn't miss the

opportunity to have a few words to say about the personal care homes in my own

area, in my own district. I don't believe, as a matter of fact, that there is a

district in Newfoundland which has a larger collection of personal care homes

than my district and the district of Conception Bay South, which is represented

by the Minister of Environment and Lands. I guess, between the two of us, we

have the largest collection of personal care homes, previously known as licensed

boarding homes, of any other district in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a matter of fact, it is the largest employer in my

district and the district of Conception Bay South and that area. There are

actually about 500 people working out of licensed boarding homes or personal

care homes, would you believe, between Topsail and my own district which goes

right on back to Marysvale. That is quite a sizeable number of people working in

these personal care homes.

As a matter of fact, I visit these personal care homes very,

very frequently, sometimes on a weekly basis, and I am well aware of the

problems that some of these homes are experiencing. There is probably no better

service, no better supervised or better run homes for seniors anywhere in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador than what you will find in my area: In

Holyrood; Kelligrews; Upper Gullies; and the Foxtrap area. There is no better

run service anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador than what you will find in

that particular area.

As I said, I visit these homes on a very regular basis and,

lately, I would say to the minister, I am getting some complaints from quite a

number of these people who run these personal care homes. Quite a number of

complaints that, quite naturally, would have to do with the rate that these

homes presently receive. Now, the impression has always been - and I remember

when I was sitting in government - that the people who run the personal care

homes are the elite, they are on the pig's back, they are doing quite well out

of the rates that they receive for running these personal care homes. But I

would say to the minister, that I don't believe there is any service that could

be given to a senior as cheaply as what is being provided by these operators.

They provide that service for approximately twenty, twenty-one or twenty-two

dollars a day. I believe the rate the government is giving them - I am not sure

now what it is - but it was somewhere up around the $610 - $620 range. This is

what they are receiving per patient, roughly around twenty or twenty-one dollars

a day. I don't believe there is any service anywhere in the Province that could

be given to a senior as cheaply as what these people are required to give it.

They, for the most part, give very good service, very good food and very good

entertainment. They provide recreational services for these people as well, and

a lot of very personal care.

You know, when you consider that right now they seem to be

regulated to death, the rate really should be a whole lot more than what it

presently is. Now, I realize that the government's fiscal capacity to respond to

every request is quite limited at the moment. But I remember back in April of

1989, I believe, we made a commitment - and when I say we, I mean we were

government at the time - to these licensed boarding home operators or personal

care home operators, that their rate was going to be increased, and increased

quite substantially. I think it was somewhere in the area of 30 or 35 per cent

of an increase that they were going to receive, and when the government came to

power, that was completely cancelled. I don't know if they have had a rate

increase since; I believe if they have, it has been a very small one.

So, I would ask the government to be a little bit more

cognizant of what these people have to provide in the way of service and that

they are providing it at a very cheap rate right now. And, as I said, they are

being regulated to death. The rates have not, over the last number of years,

kept pace with some of the services that they have to provide. It certainly

hasn't kept pace with the cost of living. Just recently, as a matter of fact, I

visited one of the personal care homes and the operator told me that the cost of

workers' compensation has increased so much over the years, especially over the

last couple of years, that it was becoming almost impossible to meet that bill

alone. Mr. Speaker, there are new regulations, as well, that have come in, for

dealing with the dietary aspect of it. It is costing the home operator a whole

lot more than what it previously did. So, it is a very cheap way of government

getting a very good service. If you were to put some of these people who are

presently in personal care homes - and the government is only paying twenty-odd

dollars a day for it, if these people had to be transferred to Agnes Pratt or

St. Luke's or any of these homes, you would not be able to get that service for

under $3,000, and the government is paying quite heavily for that type of

service. So I can't see why the government can't raise the rate a little bit for

these people who operate personal care homes and I would ask the minister to

give some consideration to that.

The act also says that home owners should provide social

activities and leisure time, as well, for these people. And that is a very good

thing, no one could argue with that, but sometimes, especially when you are

living in an outport area, these people have to be transported great distances

to take advantage of social activities around various areas because they may not

have those social activities in the community.

I remember back a couple of years ago the problems that some

of the personal care home operators had up in Conception Bay South in having a

vehicle paid for and approved by government. So, it is fine and dandy in the act

to say that the individual, the personal care home operator has to supply all of

these things so that people can take advantage of leisure activities but, at the

same time, you don't address how they are going to be able to do that and how

they are going to be able to transport these people. I think government should

come to grips with these types of problems and help out the personal care home

operator in these ways. Again, I say how can a licensed home operator provide

all of these services outlined in the act on such a meagre rate. The act further

states, and I don't know, maybe the minister can tell us when he stands to close

debate on it, the act states that the owner cannot raise funds to help out in

its operation. Now, I cannot see, for the life of me, why the owner of a

personal care home would not be allowed to raise funds to help out in its

operation. Maybe the minister can give us some reasons for that. But, for the

most part, Mr. Speaker, I have read the act in detail. It is a very good act but

again I would ask the minister, I know he is not paying any attention to me

anyway, but I would ask him to give a little bit more consideration to the

personal home operators' rate, because their rate is not as high as it should

be. The government is receiving a very good service for a very small amount of

money - $20-odd dollars a day. I am personally aware of some of these homes,

like Woodford's in Holyrood, and Quinlan's, and Kennedy's, who have just

immaculate homes - who have beautiful, beautiful homes.

I visit all of these on an individual basis, and the care

that some of these seniors are receiving there is just absolutely wonderful. It

is phenomenal that these people are able to provide that type of service for

such a meagre rate.

So, I would ask the minister, when Budget time rolls around

again - when he is sitting around the Cabinet table - and the personal care

homes come up for discussion, that he would convince his colleagues, if he can,

to honour the commitment that the previous government gave, back in April of

1989, I believe, that their rate would be increased - I believe it was up around

30 per cent.

I think, if the minister investigates these personal care

homes and sees the type of a service they are trying to provide on a small

amount of money, he will agree that they should be given substantial increases.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answering some of the points that were raised by the hon.

the Member for Harbour Main, I, too, would like to endorse what he has said

about the personal care homes.

I visited a number of them. I have not visited nearly as many

personal care homes as I have the nursing homes and the hospitals. I don't

believe I visited any in his district. I visited quite a number in Conception

Bay South. I also visited one, I think, in Goose Bay, one in Musgrave Harbour

and one on Fogo Island when I was there. I visited some in the Lewisporte area,

and I will be visiting all of the others, too, but I must say that I agree with

the Member for Harbour Main in that I was very much impressed with the caring

attitude that the owners have toward the people, the residents, of personal care

homes. I am also aware of the pressure that is on the owners of personal care

homes to stay solvent.

The government has made some moves to assist. We have allowed

some of the personal care homes to be somewhat larger in order to take advantage

of some economies of scale. I don't know what the future of personal care homes

might be. I don't know if we should encourage a lot more to be built or not. I

know there are more people who are getting older. The population is aging, and

we can expect that segment of the population to increase in numbers, but whether

they should all be institutionalized in nursing homes and personal care homes is

a question.

It is true that nursing homes are quite expensive. An average

cost, per resident, is about $47,000 gross,

whereas a personal care home is

much, much cheaper. So the more people who can be accommodated in personal care

homes as opposed to nursing homes would be a good point.

The other point is: Can some people be assisted to stay in

their own homes more? Some certainly can. I believe there used to be an attitude

around that as soon as you reached the magic number of 65 or 70, you would try

to sell off, and not shovel any more snow, or cook any more meals; move in with

somebody and let someone else and the government, partly, look after it, or

somebody else look after it.

I believe that attitude is disappearing - not disappearing,

but it is winding down a bit. The thought now is that this could impose an

intolerable burden on the health care system, and maybe we should look at people

residing more in their own homes and giving them a bit of help to shovel the

snow or whatever they can't do for themselves or provide the nursing care that

they need. So we are working at that.

The member suggests that perhaps the homes are overregulated.

I believe a lot of that goes back to that fire some years ago, in a nursing

home, where people died, and there has been a fear on the part of officials and

others that we have to be very careful about the regulations. As a result of

that I believe government put in paid security, and the average nursing home

gets $26,000 now from the government to have night security, so that there will

always be two people on hand, the owner or whatever, plus another person always

there in the home to look after that. So we have helped a little bit. But I

appreciate the problem of over - now, there may be some - I don't want to go on

too long on this, but I just want to point out that there are also seniors

apartments in this city and elsewhere which are not regulated by the Department

of Health, they are not regulated by the Department of Social Services, in fact,

they can be regulated by municipalities as far as certain building codes and

things like that are concerned. But sometimes in these senior citizens

apartments, a person can be quite sick, chronically ill and occupying a room in

an apartment, and often they are called upon for home care services to go in. In

one apartment complex that I am aware of, maybe twenty-five or thirty home care

workers work in that apartment complex. But it is not totally unregulated by

government with respect to health care. I am not suggesting that we move in

there, but I am suggesting, in response to what the hon. the Member for Harbour

Main said, that the personal care homes, most of whose residents are not

particularly sick, some are, but not a high level of sickness needing much

nursing care or anything like that. But they are quite well regulated, heavily

regulated,

whereas these other institutions are not at all regulated. I am not

suggesting they should be. But it is a matter of something to be looked at. I

don't want to overregulate anybody because once you start overregulating you put

the power in the hands of public servants who impose a certain standard right

across and then maybe that is not totally appropriate and it is also quite

costly.

So we have to be fairly careful here with what we are doing.

There has to be a reasonable balance. But I appreciate the hon. member's

comments about the cost. I cannot make any commitments about addressing them but

we, too, are aware of the problems that they have. One of the problems they have

in a personal care home is people who need to have things like occupational

therapy or physiotherapy or even some organized recreation and the cost of

providing the organized recreation, the transportation to some facility, or

whatever, is often pretty heavy on the personal care home operator. And that

causes sometimes a bit of a problem. But, in any event, I thank the hon. member

for his comments and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Licensing And

Inspection Of Health And Social Agencies," read a second time, ordered referred

to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 46).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let us try to make it two in a

row for the Minister of Health. Order 18, Bill No. 40.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Medical Act". (Bill No. 40).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the rapidity with which these bills are going

through second reading sort of caught me with my paper mixed up.

MR. GOVER: What a good minister! An excellent minister!

No criticism at all. He really designed those well.

DR. KITCHEN: What we are about to do here is to make some

amendments to The Medical Act of 1974, and I will just read briefly from the

explanatory notes and we can go a bit further from that.

We changed the definition of medical practitioner slightly,

it now means a person who is registered in the medical register or holds or has

held a licence. You wonder why that has been changed and they tell me that is

part of a disciplinary procedure to enable the medical association to more

carefully regulate the practise of medicine so that people cannot just stop

practising and not be subject to discipline.

If you are on the register, you are able to be approached by

the board and

Section 6 of the new act which deals with

section 24 of the old

act spells out more clearly what can be done in the area of discipline. So this

is one of the main purposes of this, to tidy up some of the disciplinary points

here, to allow the Newfoundland Medical Board to make a disciplinary ruling

against a practitioner who has held a licence but does not at the time of the

disciplinary procedures, so he may have given up his licence but he is still

subject to the disciplinary procedures of the medical board; and then,

Section

14 is the other one which I should call attention to,

section 14 of the act,

amendment of

section 14 -

It is actually 13, somebody had given me the wrong reference

here. The paragraph in

Section 4 of the act to amend, you will see Paragraph 13

(

d) of the old Act is repealed and the following substituted; and then under

paragraph 4 (2), (

o) and (

p) are repealed and the following substituted; we are

putting in conflict of interest which was not there before; internship and

residency training and specifying a few other odds and ends. These things have

been requested by the Newfoundland Medical Association and we are now presenting

them for amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition Party Whip, the Member

for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do not have any great

comment to make on this bill. I will say to the minister that I went over the

old act along with the new act and I found it has barely changed; it is only a

re-organization of the language, just housekeeping.

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

DR. KITCHEN: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a Bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow,

(Bill No. 40).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was consulting with my friend

for Grand Bank as to whether we would do order 10 or order 11 next, we are

largely in the hands of the Opposition. Order 11 is a very routine matter unless

the Opposition want to have a long debate. Order 11, Mr. Speaker, is the bill

that substitutes the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations as the minister

to whom the Human Rights Commission reports instead of the Minister of Justice

for obvious and proper reasons.

My friend for Grand Bank is returning to the Chamber, do we

do order 10 or 11? Do we do the Human Rights thing or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: Well then, Mr. Speaker, we are always eager

to oblige. Could we have order 10 which is Bill 22, "An Act To Amend The Shops

Closing Act".

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops

Closing Act", (Bill No. 22).

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By way of introduction, I would like to point out three

issues that are of concern here in this bill to amend the Shops Closing Act. The

issue has been around for some time from two or three different perspectives

that are dealt with here.

One item th