November

26, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 72

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege.

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

point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I was rising on the point of

privilege which I raised yesterday and gave notice of yesterday. I am now in a

position to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair had called Oral Questions. I am just wondering

whether the Member for St. John's East is aware of that. Points of privilege are

not usually brought up during Question Period; however, if the member is

prepared to use the Question Period time, I think he should be made aware of

that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when the Chair called for

Ministerial Statements, I stood. I believe the Chair looked over there and saw

no ministers standing and did not see me, but I was standing before the Chair

called Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: If hon. members are prepared to revert back

to the period before Oral Questions was called -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of privilege, and I gave notice of it

yesterday. I understand the procedure to be that I would make my submission now

and the Chair would rule as to whether or not there was a prima facie case of

privilege before the House.

I have a motion, if the Chair rules in that favour. I was

relying on Beauchesne, but I understand from the Clerk that the procedure of

this House is that if the Chair does rule that it is a prima facie case of

privilege, that the Government House Leader is the one to make the motion.

My point of privilege concerns the following, Mr. Speaker,

and it regards a statement made in the House by the Minister of Social Services

on November 5, 1992. It was made, and the two factors that I believe have to be

established are: Number one, my giving notice was given at the first reasonable

opportunity; and if there is a case of privilege.

I will read the statement made by the Minister of Social

Services on November 5th. It was made at the point in the Standing Orders to do

with Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. The minister said

that he was asked a question by the Member for St. John's East yesterday - that

would be November 5th - concerning the emergency housing repair program, and I

quote: He mentioned a case in Bellevue district where in fact he suggested work

had not been completed. I am happy to report to the House that that case, in

fact, has been looked after - I believe a couple of months ago.He goes on to

say: these two disabled individuals who required heat and electricity added to

their house, through the intervention and hard work of the Member for Bellevue

and my staff, we were able to carry out that work some two months ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that statement was made on a day following

a question by me, in which I made the statement in the House that the work had

been ordered but that the contract had been cancelled. The minister did not have

to rise in the House on November 5, he had ample opportunity to check with the

individual's involved, with his officials and with others. Though he rose, not

in answer to my question, Mr. Speaker, but presumably in answer to inquiries and

action that he had taken. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation, there is not a

minister misstating himself in the House, but a minister after reflection and

opportunity to investigate the facts, comes forward and offers to the House

information which in fact is not correct.

Mr. Speaker, the work of which I was speaking and of which

the minister was speaking did not in fact commence until after the minister had

made his statement in the House that it was done two months ago. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the building permit or permit that was granted to do the work is in

fact dated November 16. I am told that the work in fact commenced a couple of

days before that but certainly was not completed until after November 16 and in

fact, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the questions asked in this House were what

resulted in the work actually getting done. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a case here

where the minister misled the House.

In looking at precedence I have discovered of course the

general rule that a question of privilege must relate to the members capacity to

serve the people who have chosen him as their representative and to act in the

House. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to represent people in this House if upon

asking questions the minister comes in, and this was done I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, in an attempt to put down this hon. member and say that his facts were

not right, that this work in fact was done two months ago through his staff and

the Member for Bellevue. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he was misleading the House and

as the Premier would say: it is more than I can say as to whether he was doing

it deliberately or not or whether the Member for Bellevue was providing him with

this information deliberately or not. I refer the Chair to the Erskine May

eighteenth edition, where it has said that, this is page 137 of the eighteenth

edition referring to Caters case: first of all it talks about the giving of

false evidence, before the House, or before committee's of the House as punished

as contempt but then it goes on to say, person's who present false, forged or

fabricated documents to either House or to committee's are guilty of a breach of

privilege.

Then it goes on to say: that conspiracy to deceive either

House or any committee of either House, will also be treated as a breach of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now debating - when an hon. member is

making a point of privilege, it is just to state what is the point of privilege

and to see if the Speaker grants the debate, otherwise the member just makes the

point of privilege and takes his place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just providing a precedent to Your Honour, to allow you

to determine whether or not in fact this comes within the bounds of a breach of

privilege. Obviously, I am not arguing the case but just stating the precedent

and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not the knowledge as to whether there

was an intention to deceive the House but I do say, Mr. Speaker, that given the

fact that this statement made by the minister was not made in answer to my

question of the moment, but in fact was given after an opportunity to examine

the facts and look it up that, if it is not a purposeful deceit of the House, it

is certainly such a serious degree of negligence with respect to the facts as to

constitute a breach of privilege of members of this House, so I would ask Your

Honour to rule that this is a breach of privilege.

I should say as well, that the true facts only came to my

attention yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, at approximately the noon hour, and I

raised the matter in the House yesterday afternoon so the two conditions: number

one, that there be a prima facie breach of privilege, if in fact the

circumstances

whereas I have set forth, and secondly that they were brought to

the House at the first reasonable opportunity, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this

is not a question of a dispute as to the facts, it is a question of the facts

being what they are, the minister in fact, has misled the House.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the issue for the House as I

understand it at this particular moment, is whether or not there is a prima

facie case of a breach of privilege, and a prima facie case as the hon.

gentleman for St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, it is difficult to speak, Mr.

Speaker, when the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, is muttering in quite

so loud a tone, if he could mutter a little less loudly, it would help.

The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, is the issue before the

House is whether there is a prim facie breach of privilege. If there is, a

certain procedure then begins to take place.

A prima facie case is one which, if not rebutted, if simply

standing on its own, would constitute a case. All the hon. gentleman has said,

if I heard him correctly - and I haven't seen the papers to which he has

referred, nor have I seen the citations or the - you know, I was here in the

House when the questions and answers of which he speaks were given; I haven't

seen the case laid out. But all he said amounts to a dispute on facts. Now, the

clearest thing in Beauchesne, in parliamentary practice, Mr. Speaker, is that a

dispute between members, and this comes up all the time - seldom with quite the

aura of pomposity with which the hon. gentleman has surrounded it - but it comes

up all the time in the course of debate. It is simply a dispute between two

members as to whether or not a certain set of facts existed, or whether it was

another set of facts.

If Your Honour wants a citation, I would simply refer you to

section 31 (1) in the current edition of Beauchesne, which is found on page 13.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wants to table all

the information or provide it to us, we could look at it or give it to Your

Honour and you can make the ruling - it is for Your Honour, obviously, to make

the ruling. But my submission is that he hasn't even made out a prima facie case

of privilege, it is simply a matter of a dispute between him and my friend and

colleague, the Minister of Social Services as to a given set of events, and that

ain't privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Chair is ready to make a

decision on that point of privilege now.

As the hon. member knows, 'a dispute between two members

about questions of fact said in debate does not constitute a valid question of

privilege, because it is a matter of debate' - I am quoting from Maingot. I

think the hon. member mentioned, also, that the minister was misleading the

House, and I quote Maingot: 'An allegation of misleading the House is not out of

order or unparliamentary, nor does it amount to a question of privilege.' Of

course, if the minister admitted that he misled the House, then that would be a

different matter, but the minister didn't admit that he misled the House, so I

would have to say that the member did not establish a prima facie case.

Just for hon. members, as well, I want hon. members to look

at - I don't know the appropriateness of raising the point of privilege at the

time that the hon. member did. Now, I know, a point of privilege can be raised

at any point in time, but I was calling for Ministerial Statements, and the

member said I looked to the left - because, obviously, that is where one looks

for ministerial statements - I didn't bother to look to the right, because they

don't come in this House from the right. Normally when I finish Ministerial

Statements, when there are no Ministerial Statements, I call Oral Questions

immediately. In the past, there were two occasions when members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

- there were two occasions when members rose on points of

order. One, right at the point when the Speaker called order. The Speaker says

order, and I call nothing, but then a member stands in his place to make a point

of privilege. But once I have called Ministerial Statements, I think then we are

into Ministerial Statements. By the same token, once I have called Oral

Questions we are into Oral Questions, unless it is a point of privilege related

to oral questions. Other than that, if we are on a point of order, we should do

it the minute the Chair says order, when we are opening the session. After that

point, at the end of Oral Questions or, of course, before we go into the routine

Orders of the Day.

Now, I think we reverted back from Oral Questions to

Statements By Ministers. So it is Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some questions I would like to ask the Premier, coming

out of some public comments he has made in the last day or two, particularly

with respect to the mini-budget and the approach that the government may have to

take, etc., etc., etc. We understood that Cabinet was going to make decisions

today. I think that is what he said publicly. Can he tell us now if a date has

been set, for example, when the mini-budget will be presented to the House and,

while he is on his feet, could he tell us, or at least give us some idea of the

procedure that will be used in presenting the mini-budget? Will it simply be a

Ministerial Statement and response or will it be an opportunity for full-length

debate like you have under a full budget presentation. What exactly are we going

to do, or does the government know yet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I guess the simplest answer is that the

government doesn't know yet. Cabinet met until just a few minutes ago. We didn't

conclude our meeting. We will be reconvening - well, I have another meeting at

five o'clock - probably about five-thirty. I don't know by what time we will

have made some decisions. I can only say to you that one decision is clear now.

I do not feel that we can possibly make a revised financial statement for the

Province, until Mr. Mazankowski has made a statement on behalf of the federal

government. Because what he has to say in that statement may well have

substantial bearing on what the Province does or has open to it to do.

So it will take a few days after that to come to a

conclusion. A good deal of work will be done before December 2, when Mr.

Mazankowski proposes making a statement. So it shouldn't take us much longer,

after December 2, before which we can make a statement in this House. We are not

in a position, or at least the Cabinet has not decided yet, what will be the

form of it. I don't know whether we will be able to do that this evening when we

meet again or not, but as soon as I know I will undertake to let the Leader of

the Opposition know.

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

MR. SIMMS: I thank the Premier, Mr. Speaker, for the

answers.

Now, I also wouldn't expect the Premier to reveal budget

details. I do not think that would be very wise of me to expect him to do that.

But can I try in some other way to ask him what general direction he thinks this

process might take. I mean, we are all familiar with the cut and tax approach of

the government for the last three years. Is there any way in the world that the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador should expect to see, in this particular

budget, any kind of action or decisions that might help to stimulate the

economy, as opposed to simply just looking after cutbacks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I could be equally evasive as the hon.

member and say that the position we are going to take is the right one, the one

that we believe will be the right one for the Province. The challenge, as the

Opposition Leader knows - I guess that is really the point of his question - is

to meet and cope with two competing forces at the same time. One of the

competing forces is the financial problem that the Province has due to reduction

in revenues below what was anticipated, and the high debt load that the Province

bears relative to other provinces of Canada or many other provinces of Canada,

at least. That makes it very difficult for us to borrow more money to stimulate

the economy.

Now, equally, the Opposition Leader is quite correct, that in

these kinds of recessionary times, the medicine that we would like to be able to

apply is some economic stimulus, if we could, but that takes financial

resources. So I am quite confident that the Leader of the Opposition is well

aware of the dichotomy that the government finds itself in at this particular

time.

I should say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the government

is considering all of those aspects. We have to look at our capital budget, what

we can do with that, the extent to which that may or may not be restrained and

the extent to which it might adversely affect our overall objective, to restrain

it too severely. There are a whole lot of considerations that the government has

to take into account, before it makes it final decision.

So I can only say, in answer to the specific question of the

Leader of the Opposition, that I can't tell him exactly what the direction will

be and to what extent it will be in that direction. I can only assure him that

government is cognizant of all of the circumstances that we have to address.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

I believe the Premier - and I don't want to misquote him, but

I am sure if I do he will be the first one to correct me - but I believe

somewhere along the way I read or heard that the Premier had asked or encouraged

the Prime Minister to do exactly what I was suggesting about borrowing a bit

more and stimulating the economy and so on. Now, that may be incorrect, but I am

sure I read it or heard it somewhere, and he may want to take the opportunity to

point out that he has been misquoted again.

I do want to ask him this, and this is something that I know

he did say. The Premier himself told the media and, through the media, the

public, that the measures that they will take as a government to reduce the

deficit will be uniform across the board. I think that is pretty well a quote.

Now, I want to ask him: What exactly did he mean by that? Was he simply

referring to the public service sector unions or is he talking about the general

public? In other words, does he have tax increases in mind, in order for it to

apply uniformly across the board to all the population?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The leader has raised two issues. I will

tell the House precisely what the news media were trying to report about my

comments at the time to the Prime Minister. After my meeting with the Prime

Minister a couple of days ago, both of us met the media outside his office. He

briefly addressed the media and, in his words, then left me to their tender

mercies and walked back in to the shelter of his own office, so I responded on

behalf of both of us to the questions that the media wanted to raise.

They were asking questions about the financial situation and

I was expressing understanding, great understanding for the position for the

federal government. They asked me if I was looking for money from the federal

government and I was explaining to the media that no, because I knew the

position that the federal government was in and what I was looking for was

co-operative effort to solve jointly our financial and economic problems, and

one of the media asked me: Well, in the present economic circumstances, do you

feel that we should have some stimulus in the economy? and my response to him

was that the government had very little option, the Federal Government had very

little option in terms of stimulating the economy.

It had the same dichotomy facing it that I just addressed, so

to the extent that it borrowed extra money to stimulate the economy, it

exacerbated the deficit and debt problem, but I believe that it was appropriate

to the maximum extent that the government could, within the limitations of its

debt and deficit situation, that the government try to find some means to spend

its money in a way that would provide an economic stimulus. I had not asked the

Prime Minister to do it. I explained to the news media that that was my view of

what ought to be done, but that we ought to recognize the limitations on the

Federal Government in this regard.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker -

PREMIER WELLS: I had forgotten, he had a second part

(inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I forget what it was, too.

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, now I know.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That was the first part of it and the

second part was, I am quoted, he said, and I think this is a direct quote, of

having told the media that the matter was going to be uniform across the board.

I don't recall using those words but here is what I did say to the media, to the

best of my recollection: that the government recognized that it was not right to

attempt to address these problems solely on the basis of restraining

compensation in the public service and restraining public expenditure, that this

was a problem that the Province had to address on a Province-wide basis and that

the government was aware of this and it couldn't be addressed solely by placing

restraints or constraints on one sector of the economy. This may, in fact

necessitate some tax adjustment. There may be other means of doing that, that

the government is looking at and we are considering other possible means now.

But what I did say to the media was not that matters would be uniform across the

board, I don't recall using those words, but I did indicate clearly that the

government was not seeking to deal with it solely on the basis of restraining

public expenditures on salaries and other programs.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

For the last three, three-and-a-half years now, the

Government of this Province have cut jobs and services in each of the last three

budgets, in particular, but still, the overall spending has really increased

over that period of time; the government has taxed like no other government in

our history, in our recent history certainly, yet the revenues from provincial

sources all seem to be falling consistently and steadily. Is it not a bit

obvious now to the Premier that really, what has transpired in the past has

caused us to be past the point of diminishing returns, and when is he going to

wake up to that reality and really have a hard look at trying to do something to

stimulate the economy and create some jobs? Doesn't he think that that really is

where the answer lies, and if so, why has he not done it for the last three

years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Most of the underlying statements that the

Opposition Leader made are not correct, so his conclusions in the question on

which he bases it, of course, are not very sound: The government cut jobs and

services in 'each of the last three budgets'. We cut jobs in one of the last

three budgets, not each of the last three budgets, there was a significant

reduction in one of the last three budgets. The second statement was that

revenue from provincial sources have been going down and doesn't the government

realize that the answer is to stimulate the economy? No, Mr. Speaker, he is

wrong on that, too. Revenue from provincial sources has not been going down

steadily over those last three years, and I will produce the detail.

AN HON. MEMBER: It has been going up.

PREMIER WELLS: It has been going up over the last three

years. What has been going down is revenue from the Federal Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Just listen. I ask hon. members to just

listen to the figures. Just listen to the figures.

The last year they sat on this side of the House, the federal

revenue, I believe, was more than 50 per cent of the total budget. The federal

transfers was more than 50 per cent of the total provincial revenue. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the federal revenue on this last year, this current fiscal year, I

believe was projected at 44 per cent - down 6 percentage points.

With the drop that we have just recently been advised of -

the drop of some $49 million in equalization - that may drop it another one,

two, or maybe more percentage points. It may, in fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) EPF.

PREMIER WELLS: I am talking about the total - EPF and

equalization.

I am talking about the total federal transfers. Mr. Speaker,

They have gone down in the last three years, and with this recent reduction -

even with a $16 million increase in EPF, but with a $49 million decrease in

equalization, will cause a further reduction in the percentage of the total

revenue of the Province that comes from federal sources. It will be down

probably to 43 or 42 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, how, therefore, can the question of the

Leader of the Opposition be correct when he says that the provincial revenues

have gone down each year? - they have not, Mr. Speaker, they have gone up,

because that is what has supported the reduction in the federal revenue.

Now, in the meantime, we have needed this additional revenue

to keep the Province going, in light of the federal reduction. Am I blaming the

Federal Government? No, Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House year after year

after year and said that I understand what the Federal Government have to do

because of their massive deficit and the incredible debt situation of the

country. I cannot argue against what they are doing, and we must help, with the

rest of the country. I have stood here and said that time and time and time

again, lest anybody start saying, as they have been doing, that all we are doing

is blaming the Federal Government. That is not so. We recognize the massive

problem that exists in the nation. Because of the necessary decisions that the

Federal Government must take, and I understand that, we are faced with

reductions that we must deal with. That is exactly what we have been doing, Mr.

Speaker, and I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't really see

the broader picture.

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

MR. SIMMS: I have just one final supplementary, Mr.

Speaker.

It is too bad we didn't have a bit more time to discuss it

here in Question Period. The point I was trying to make to the Premier, and he

does so very well - he is so clever at twisting the things that we are trying to

say - the point I was making to him is that they have taxed and taxed and taxed

for the past number of years. Yet, in comparison to the number of provincial tax

increases that you have imposed on businesses, personal income tax, and all the

rest, without getting into a debate, the revenues from provincial sources have

gone down.

In this recent statement that your own Minister of Finance

made two weeks ago, the point is $32 million less from federal sources, but

there is $63 million less from provincial sources. Your own provincial income

tax is down by $47 million, which is a reflection on the policies of the

government, and that is my point. My question is: Would the Premier take the

advice that I have offered him from time to time in the past, the advice of the

Board of Trade, the advice of several business groups around this Province, and

the advice of his own former Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber West?

Will he cut some taxes to stimulate investment and consumer spending in this

Province so that we can begin to repair the damage that his government has

inflicted on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Here are the revenue figures from the

provincial sources for the last five years: 1988-'89, $l,333,000,000; 1989-'90,

$1,484,000,000; 1990-'91, $1,553,000,000; 1991-'92, $1,645,000,000; 1992-'93,

projected at $1,721,000,000 - steady increases, Mr. Speaker. But the Leader of

the Opposition makes a valid point when he says that part of that increase is

due to increase in the rate of taxation. He is quite correct when he says that.

Then, he asks, will we take the advice he has given us? That is part of what put

us in this mess, Mr. Speaker. We can't borrow. We either generate revenue from

economic activity and taxation combined, or we borrow.

I refer hon. members to an

article by Giles Gherson, in the

Financial Times or the Financial Post, one of them, of the last few days,

talking about the bonds of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, possibly reaching the

junk stage. Now, here it is. Let me quote exactly what he said: 'Already,

Saskatchewan and Newfoundland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I ask hon. members to stop babbling and

they might hear something that might enable them to make an intelligent

judgement on this issue, Mr. Speaker. Here is what he says: 'Already,

Saskatchewan and Newfoundland are a step away from having their debt downgraded

to junk status in the U.S.' Now, Mr. Speaker, the advice from the Leader of the

Opposition is go and borrow more - cut taxes and borrow more. Now, there is his

advice, Mr. Speaker. Is that what he wants to do - bankrupt the Province? Mr.

Speaker, we are going to be very responsible in the management of the financial

affairs of the Province and we will seek to provide the maximum possible level

of economic stimulus that we can provide within the limits of the ability of the

government to borrow more money, and within the limits of the ability of the

taxpayers of this Province to pay more taxes - and both are very limited, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the minister responsible for Employment

and Labour Relations. The Minister of Finance has already announced that all

departments of government have to implement a 3 per cent savings program. Let me

ask the minister, Is it his intention to implement such a program in the already

inadequate employment division of his department?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the

question. The instructions are being followed in all departments of government

and we are reporting back to Cabinet as to the options that exist in every

division of every department, as to how to effect savings for the remainder of

this year.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I understand the

minister correctly, he is saying that with four months left in this fiscal year,

his department, his division of government, the one responsible for employment

in this Province, is not going to take

part in any employment programs for the

remainder of 1992 - 1993? Is that what the minister is saying to the unemployed

of Newfoundland - that his department, directly responsible for employment, is

not going to partake in any job creation for the rest of this fiscal year?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I really don't understand why he

is asking this - it makes absolutely no sense to me. He asked the question, Is

that division of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations looking at

saving 1 per cent on salary cost and 3 per cent on operating cost for the rest

of the year, like every other division of every other department? That has

nothing to do with whether or not the programs that are in place are going to

continue. It is just to say, Can these measures of savings be effected in the

next four months, while continuing on with the programs. And how you can go from

that first question to the second is completely beyond me, because it makes

absolutely no sense.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously not

very alert today. I am saying to the minister that he has four months of this

fiscal year left and we have an unemployment crisis in this Province. Is the

minister saying that for the remainder of this year, his employment division

will create no more jobs for the people of this Province, only maintaining what

is already there? Is that what he is saying?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will try to make the hon.

member opposite understand: On an ongoing basis throughout the twelve months of

the fiscal year, the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, through its

Employment Services branch, runs programs, graduate employment programs, student

employment programs, the employment generation programs, that through every

month for the whole of the year, there are applications being processed and

approved. I signed a batch of them yesterday. In a couple of those programs for

approval, as the requests come in, the money is still budgeted and flowing. They

get approved accordingly as the research and review of each application is done

based on its merit. There is nothing stopping the continuation of the employment

programs in the division of Employment Services in the department. What we are

looking at, is to ask, in terms of the operational costs related to running that

program or any other, can we effect savings in the rest of this fiscal year? -

and we are looking at that.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that there is

nothing left in the department. There are a few dollars left for the ongoing

programs. If there is money left in the department, why hasn't the minister

spent it to create jobs in this Province? Mr. Speaker, what nonsense!

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal minister announced a $5

million program for job creation in areas affected by a poor fishery. The

federal minister took his responsibility seriously because it was mainly a

federal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, the provincial minister has a

responsibility as a Minister of Employment for the unemployed labourers, the

miners, the loggers in this Province. Mr. Speaker, my question is: What is he

going to do to help all the unemployed? Is he going to suggest, as the former

minister did, that these people go to Social Services for assistance? Is that

what he is suggesting?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I heard the hon. member's number quoted correctly.

He said that Mr. Crosbie yesterday announced a $5 million program to help people

in the fishing areas, with fishery response projects that will give them the

necessary amount of work so that they can qualify for unemployment insurance. I

don't know what province the hon. member has been in for the last while, but two

months ago on the 18th of September, this government announced a $13.5 million

program in which there are now 4,000 people currently working in the Province

that would not have been without that initiative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that was only replacing what he took from

it last year. Mr. Speaker, since the minister has nothing to offer, let me ask

the minister responsible for Social Services: Thousands of Newfoundlanders on UI

following the employment program that was in place last fall and early last

winter, are now about to have their benefits terminated. Since the minister has

indicated there is going to be nothing in his department, will the Minister of

Social Services have some money put into the Community Development Fund in his

division so that these people can have an opportunity to work?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we have to respond, of course,

in my department on a needs basis, as people need our services, whether it be

social assistance or other services. I think the government has responded this

year with programs through Employment and Labour Relations, my department and

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Some $11 million was added to our current

spending. We are in the last stages now of spending that money. I gave out some

approvals, as a matter of fact, I have some with me, for some final projects

that are being included in the $5 million dollars that was in my department. So,

Mr. Speaker, I would say we have done a substantial amount of work this year. We

have created a substantial amount of work throughout the three departments that

have been involved already.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This week, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

announced changes restricting the right of councils to tax some of the utility

companies in this Province. I have been in contact with the Burin Town Council,

which will lose approximately $87,000 dollars, and the Marystown Town Council

who tell me they will lose approximately $95,000 dollars. What is the minister

going to do, Mr. Speaker, to prevent this burden from being passed on to the

taxpayers of these towns? I have been told by the Burin council, for example, it

will mean a whopping 35 per cent increase on property taxes if they have to find

that money.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Since the imposition, or the projected

imposition of this new tax on utilities, Mr. Speaker, there have been no

submissions forthcoming from any municipalities to the department to point out

any plight or any extra burden but it is realized by this government and by this

department that, indeed, in fact, some councils, particularly the ones that have

been mentioned by the hon. member, will have had an inordinate burden placed on

them. They will have to try to cope with it, and we will assist them the best

way we can.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, he can

expect correspondence.

I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Is he aware

that last year the Marystown town council took Newfoundland Telephone to court

for the right to tax the equipment within the building - not just the property

but the equipment within the building. Mr. Speaker, after several months of

court work, through appeals, that eventually led to the Supreme Court ruling in

favour of Marystown just a few months ago, does the minister realize that now,

in this bill he is going to bring before the House, he is overruling the court

decision that gave Marystown the right to tax the equipment of Newfoundland

Telephone?

I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Does he

support the court's decision, and if he does not, why not? Mr. Speaker, why has

he brought into this Legislature a bill that will overrule the rights of the

Supreme Court of this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you for the protection of the Chair, Mr.

Speaker.

I am not fully aware or fully cognizant nor am I fully

briefed on the decision of the court in that regard, but I am aware of the fact

that the legislation will withdraw the ability of the councils to tax equipment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I just remind members to my right that the Chair is having

difficulty hearing the answers. After just about every statement there is some

kind of noise or response and the Chair can't hear. The Chair would like to hear

what is being said, because if the Chair can't hear what is being said then it

can't make any judgement if members should ask any question related to it. So I

would ask hon. members, please, to restrain themselves and to please realize the

difficulty of hearing someone speaking when someone else is interjecting. I

would ask the minister to continue with his answer. I don't know whether the

minister was finished with is answer or not.

MR. HOGAN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister is finished.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question to the minister, then, Mr. Speaker. What he

has done here is put restrictions on the councils to tax public utility

companies in this Province. But they are saying to the Burin town council, you

can go out and charge Fishery Products 20 mils if you want to, but you are going

to be restricted in charging our buddies in the utility companies.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the enormous cost involved in

that case that went to the Supreme Court, is the minister aware that his

department paid the greater portion of that cost to have Newfoundland Telephone

brought to the Supreme Court and have the lawyer's fight successful in having

this ruling made in favour in favour of Marystown? Is he aware that his

department paid to have that procedure put in place?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not aware my department

is that generous. It was probably before my time, the generosity of my

predecessor. I might not have been as generous to my hon. friend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOGAN: If hon. members don't want to listen, Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to give them an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Public Tender Act

Exceptions for October, 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: If I could interrupt hon. members, I see

some students leaving, and the Chair inadvertently forgot to welcome a group of

students here today. Members will understand that they generally only stay for

Question Period so, as they leave, we would like to welcome them, if they have

not left. They are a group of thirty-three students from the Pentecostal High

School in the district of Port de Grave -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

- accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Junior Taylor and Ms.

Karen Janes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I stand today in the Legislature

to present a petition, a number of petitions, in fact - I am going to present

them all together - that are gathered by a number of groups of concerned

citizens in this Province. The number of petitioners total 6,198 names on these

particular petitions that I will table, and I understand other members of the

Legislature have similar petitions to present from different parts of the

Province.

These names are collected by a number of different groups,

including the well-known SNAG group from Placentia, the SNAG group from St.

John's, the Coalition Against Incineration, Action Environment, and other

individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to make it clear to the House

that this is not the end of the petition drive to be undertaken by these groups

of concerned individuals. Really, it is only the beginning. They intend to

continue to collect names for petitions and have them presented here in the

Legislature, and we have offered to do whatever we can in that regard.

I might mention, before reading the prayer of the petition,

if I might, that the group is holding a demonstration on Sunday - that is this

coming Sunday - at 2:00 p.m. in front of the Confederation Building, this wing -

What is this called, the east wing?

MR. MATTHEWS: The west wing.

MR. SIMMS: This is the -

MR. MATTHEWS: East Block.

MR. SIMMS: - the East Block, here in front of this

building at 2:00 p.m., and I know that there will be representatives from all

parties there to lend support to their request. Their request, in essence, is a

request for the Government of this Province to take a position firmly and

finally, opposing the incineration project that has been proposed for Long

Harbour.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that some of the

names on this petition, by the way, or some of the petitions included in here,

in fact, one of them, in particular, has come from a number of residents of New

York - as far away as New York. Their prayer is a little bit different. They say

that Newfoundland is fighting a proposal to build an incinerator to burn 3,500

tons of New York's waste each day, and they say, please support their efforts -

that is, the efforts of the Newfoundlanders - by signing this petition and

mailing it to them when you have finished it; make the United States solve our

waste disposal problems, not export them elsewhere, which is a rather

interesting little twist to the petition.

The actual prayer of the majority of these petitions, without

doing every single one of them, reads as follows:

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, through the House of Assembly, to

immediately enact legislation which will prevent the importing and incinerating

of garbage at the proposed site at Long Harbour, Placentia Bay, Newfoundland.

The other petitions' prayers are quite similar, Mr. Speaker,

but I will just refer to this particular one from the Coalition Against

Incineration, which states:

WHEREAS the importation of garbage is an indignity to the

people of Newfoundland and should not be seen as a future growth industry for

this Province; and

WHEREAS the incineration of garbage is destructive and

hazardous to both human health and the environment of this Province; and

WHEREAS the incineration of garbage goes against the

principles of sustainable development, your petitioners respectfully request

that the hon. House take such action as may be necessary to immediately stop the

proposed garbage incineration project for Long Harbour and ban through

legislation, all future such projects and, two, develop a comprehensive waste

management program for this Province that stresses the reduction, reusing and

recycling of our garbage and which excludes incineration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is a

five-minute time limitation on our speaking time, I will serve notice that I

will be presenting some other petitions tomorrow, perhaps on the same issue, and

it will give me a chance to get into some of the specific details.

I want to make it absolutely and abundantly clear - I thank

the Minister of Finance - I want to make it absolutely and abundantly clear that

our party, from a public perspective, have made a decision, have taken a

position on the issue and have done so six months ago, back in June, I think it

was, sometime, when we wrote the federal minister responsible for ACOA, asking

him to withdraw the funding that had been provided for this study. We also had

raised questions in the Legislature, as Your Honour would know, to the Minister

of Environment and Lands, from time to time, and for the life of us, we cannot

understand why this government is not able to take a position, or at least, to

tell us: Are they in favour of barges and barges of garbage coming over to this

Province from places like New York and other parts of the United States?

Surely they should be able to know what their position is on

that particular question. Thus far, we have been unable to get that kind of

response from the government. Some of them over there say: Well, we think we

should wait and see what the study says. Others over there say: I am opposed to

it. The Member for St. John's South, I think, has publicly said it; the Member

for Humber West has certainly said it. Some of the ministers over there,

including the Premier, say: Well, I personally don't like it, but I think we

should see what the study has to say. Somewhere along the line, Mr. Speaker,

surely God, they must be able to take a position as to whether or not they, in

principle, support the concept of garbage coming into this Province, other

people's garbage, from places like New York, for the purpose of incineration, or

whether they are not. Now, that should not take a lot of difficult thinking, I

wouldn't think, on the part even of members on that side of the House. They

should not have that much difficulty.

So, we support the prayer of the petition and, as I said, as

a party, our position is quite clear: we oppose it and, in fact, we think that

the government should bring in legislation to ban the importation of garbage for

this purpose and then that will resolve and solve the whole question. It will no

longer be a question. That is our policy as a party. I don't know what the

government's party policy is. I believe our policy is similar to the NDP policy;

I cannot speak for the NDP, but I think theirs is similar to ours, as my friend

points out.

MR. HARRIS: Yours followed ours.

MR. SIMMS: No, our announcement on our position followed

the day after, I think, and that was because you heard we were about to call a

press conference the next day and you rushed out to make your statement. We know

all about that.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, that is hardly the issue. It is

not the matter of importance as to who or when or where. The issue that is of

importance is that 6,198 names today, I do not know how many more, another

15,000 I think, over the next little while, they are looking for 20,000 or

25,000 names on petitions and if that is not a pretty strong indication to the

Minister of Environment and Lands, who has publicly said, 'I understand' - I

think she said it here in this House. In response to a question asked by the

Health critic, the Member for Harbour Main, she said: 'I am not sure that the

people of the Province are opposed to this, I really cannot judge that.' Well, I

am not sure where she has been for the last several months, but if she doesn't

believe that the majority of the people of this Province is opposed to that

project, then she will never be convinced because there has been enough evidence

to prove that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the representatives from the groups, SNAGG,

The Coalition Against Incineration, Accident Environment and others are also in

the gallery today in the Legislature, for obvious reasons. I guess they want to

see what the response of the government to the petitions might be. We will have

to wait and see if there is indeed any response. They are not obligated to

reply, but I am sure somebody over there will take a position on it for the

benefit of the people in the gallery, at least, so they can report back to the

6,198 petitioners that we have here this afternoon. There will be more petitions

coming, and I know there are some more here today.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly support the prayer of the petition and

ask that the petition be placed on the Table of the House and referred to the

department to which it is directed, and that the government take the necessary

action to respond to the petitioners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: The recycled member.

MR. ROBERTS: I would rather have been recycled, Mr.

Speaker, than be in the raw native state of the hon. gentleman from Burin -

Placentia West.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to address this in

the same serious way as did the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am quite

prepared to engage in badinage with the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia

West, but this is a serious matter. His leader treated it seriously and I would

like to treat it seriously as well, if he would do me the courtesy of trying not

to be rude for once in his career.

Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the petition. I shall look

forward with great interest to reading it, but I listened with great interest to

hearing what my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, had to say. I understand

some of my colleagues on this side, including my friend from Humber West, has a

similar petition, and there may be others who will be presenting them as well.

That is as it should be. We are one of the few legislatures, I guess in the

Commonwealth, that continues a tradition of presenting petitions. I think it is

a good one and I hope we will continue, as we have, to accept them.

I am glad too that there are people in the gallery today. We

don't speak to the gallery. My hon. friend opposite wasn't speaking to the

gallery, not much. But people should be here if they wish to be and hear what

they wish. I am glad people are here because I would like to be able to say just

where this government stands and why, within the three or four minutes left of

my five-minute period.

We are not waiting for a study on the Long Harbour garbage

proposal or whatever the official name of it is. The only government involved in

Crosbie, has funded, I gather, a very large study, in the order of about $1

million. Now, there is not a nickel, or to quote what John Crosbie used to say

in the long ago time when he was in the House, when the Leader of the Opposition

was just a young pup instead of being the mature dog he is today, "Not a jot,

not a tittle," of provincial money in that study. We have had nothing at all to

do with it. ACOA, for reasons known only to ACOA or to John Crosbie or whatever

process ACOA goes through, has taken $1 million of the federal money and funded

that study. There is no provincial money in it. Now, that is fine. The

We are not waiting for a study. We are not awaiting any study

of any sort. What we are waiting for is an application. At this stage, all we

know is that there is a group out there who have managed to get their hooks into

by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. This group is out there and they

are having a fine time. Whatever the merits or demerits of their proposal, they

are having a fine time. They are going ahead with a study. Now, what that will

lead to, I do not know, and none of my colleagues know. My friend, the minister

who is absent for unavoidable reasons or would otherwise be here in her place

speaking to us, does not know. When we get an application, if we get an

application, then it will be dealt with.

MR. SIMMS: Why wait?

MR. ROBERTS: Why wait? Mr. Speaker, we have always taken

the naive view on this side that we should not execute the criminal until he is

convicted; we should not come to a judgement on anything until we have the

facts. That may be one of the reasons why we are here and the hon. gentleman and

his colleagues are over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sprung (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Just compare it to Sprung. They sprang with

the money and then got the judgement later. We are not going to do that. When we

get an application, if, i-f, underlined - a little word with a great big meaning

- if we get an application, then we shall deal with it in accordance with the

laws of this Province. The government position will be stated, as always,

frankly and fully in this House if the House is meeting, and if not in a public

forum, and when the House meets we shall come here and gladly answer for it. And

when the time comes we shall gladly go to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador to explain what we have done and to ask for their support, which we

believe we will get.

We are not in favour of garbage. It is the hon. gentlemen

opposite who are concerned with garbage. What we are concerned with is a proper

and due process set down by the laws of this Province. If an application comes

in from this garbage group, then we will deal with it. Until that happens - and

it may never happen - I do not know if it is going to happen. The hon. gentleman

opposite may have some kind of clairvoyant powers to enable him to determine it,

but if it happens we will deal with it. It is his friends, his political

bedfellows - the ones with whom he is cheek to cheek, chin to chin, belly to

belly, toe to toe, jowl to jowl - it is his friend, John Crosbie, who is funding

this - not anybody over here.

So, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that Mr. Crosbie and ACOA have

taken a million bucks and they are lashing it out in this study, or they have

given it to these people to lash out on the study. I hope some of it stays here

in the Province. That is the only good news.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. ROBERTS: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Harbour Main is speaking

on the petition.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this

petition presented by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, who has

enunciated our position on this particular issue quite well. It is documented

that we are totally and completely against the importation of American garbage.

The Government House Leader can talk all he wants about John

Crosbie and the fact that the federal government has given a million dollars to

this project. If it was not the government's intention to proceed with this

project; if it was not the government's intention to call a feasibility study on

this project, why did they not get in touch with John Crosbie and the federal

government and say: Save your million dollars and put it into job creation in

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: That is all they had to do.

- if it is the government's intention to proceed with

feasibility studies on this project. We contacted Mr. Crosbie and we told him

exactly that - to save the million dollars and to put it into something much

more useful than this. So the government is dragging its' heels on this

particular issue, and it should not be.

We have asked the Minister of Environment and Lands, and we

have asked the Premier, to bring legislation to the House of Assembly - a one

clause bill which would ban this particular project and bury it once and for all

- and that is what the people of this Province want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: They want this particular project buried once

and for all!

Contrary to what the Minister of Environment and Lands says,

there is a large consensus across this Province - all across Newfoundland and

Labrador - that this project should be buried once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, how dare the Minister of Environment and Lands

stand in her place and say: Well, I do not know if I have received one negative

phone call on this particular issue. She should be in the House today to see a

petition of 6,100 names come in here, and she should be listening to the open

line programs this morning when the position of all these people was put forth

by Mr. Angel, who did a darn good job in enunciating the position of the people

of this Province with respect to this issue.

I believe there is something like 70 or 75 per cent of the

people against this project, and it is about time that this government showed a

little bit of leadership.

I remember when I was sitting on that side of the House and a

project came before the former government to store toxic waste in the abandoned

mines on Bell Island. It was the Premier of the Province, who was then Leader of

the Opposition, who stood in his place and said: The people on Bell Island are

against this; the people in Newfoundland are against this; let's bury it. We do

not need a feasibility study. Now, all of a sudden, his position has changed.

All of a sudden he is willing to see this project come to Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: That is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It might be the appropriate place to remind hon. members that

a petition is not a period for debate, although the Chair tolerates a little on

each side. I thought it might be the right time to remind hon. members on both

sides of the House just what our Standing Orders say in relation to this, and I

quote very quickly Standing Order 92 which says: Every member offering a

petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from

whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material

allegations it contains. The Chair did not make the rules, the Chair is

enforcing the rules. The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: But, Mr. Speaker, how strange it is, how

strange it is indeed that the government can change its position so quickly.

That it would be over on this side of the House calling on the government to

bury a project like the storage of waste on Bell Island because the people were

against it. Now all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, we see this government prepared to

sit idly by and not show one bit of leadership. We would support without

reservation, on this side of the House, the Minister of Environment and the

government, if they were to bring a Bill into this House, a one clause Bill,

banning this project and burying this project as it should be, Mr. Speaker, we

would support that and give it speedy passage but the government has chosen not

to show any leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, as all people in this

Province are aware this is a relatively new technology.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the privilege

of presenting a petition on behalf of residents of Ship Harbour. Mr. Speaker,

this petition from the undersigned members of the coalition against incineration

state that: the importation of garbage is an indignity to the people of

Newfoundland and should not be seen as a future growth industry for the

Province. Further, that the incineration of garbage is destructive and hazardous

to both human health and the environment of the Province. Further, that the

incineration of garbage goes against the principles of sustainable development

and asks the Honourable House to take such action as may be necessary to

immediately stop the proposed garbage incineration project for Long Harbour and

ban through legislation all future such projects. Further, Mr. Speaker, the

petitioners ask that the government develop a comprehensive waste management

program for this Province that stresses a reduction, reusing and recycling of

our garbage and which excludes incineration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about this petition, is

it comes from the people of Ship Harbour, Placentia Bay and Mr. Speaker, there

are 126 signatures of the 129 residents of Ship Harbour. Only three residents of

Ship Harbour, Mr. Speaker, did not sign the petition. I do not know whether it

was because they refused and they support the project or whether or not they

were available in the community when the petition was being taken around. So,

Mr. Speaker, this is of great significance and it should be of great

significance to the Minister of Environment that 126 out of 129 people,

residents of Ship Harbour signed this petition. Now, I do not know, Mr. Speaker,

what more the Minister of Environment and this government needs to understand

that the people of this Province are opposed to this petition.

The Minister of Environment stated that she only received one

letter on it, she only thinks there is one person in the Province who is opposed

to this project apparently. They go much further than just saying we should ban

this project and I think that that is fundamental to the petition but they asked

that the government develop a comprehensive waste management program for the

Province and stressing the reduction, reusing and recycling of our garbage and

excluding incineration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a big task to ask of this

government because the Minister of Environment has not even managed to get going

a project to recycle the garbage and the fine papers in the Confederation

building itself. For two years, Mr. Speaker, the estimate's committee has been

asking the Minister of Environment and the predecessor, to put in place a

comprehensive waste management program, just for the confederation building

alone. For two years, Mr. Speaker, we have been getting nothing but verbiage,

rhetoric and platitudes. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the petitioners of Ship Harbour

are to be listened to, the government has to provide some leadership and

decision making, leadership by example through its own actions and in the public

service and the House of Assembly and the government buildings here and

confederation building, east and west block. They have to provide leadership

here and they have to tell the people of this Province that they are listening.

That the people of Newfoundland do not want this project to go ahead.

I heard the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture inviting an

application. He said we need an application. Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not need

an application. An application is what this government seems to be inviting,

they want this project to be put before them, so that they can dilly-dally

around but they have already - it appears, Mr. Speaker, given this group, The

North American Resource Recovery Group, some assurance that if they do put an

application before them, that they could get it approved and that Mr. Speaker,

is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Ship Harbour, a fishing area in Placentia Bay,

know what pollution can do, they have their views on what is good for Placentia

Bay and what is good for Newfoundland, and 126 out of 129 of them have signed

this petition. Mr. Speaker, what more does this government need in terms of

finding out the views of the people of this Province, 'Say No To American

Garbage', that is the motto of this group who is trying to get this government

to take a very simple action and tell the proponents of this proposal that it

will not be approved, that the people of this Province do not want to become the

garbage dump of North America, say no, now, Mr. Speaker, that is what these

petitioners want and the government should simply do it. I want to place this on

the Table of the House and I ask that it be brought to the attention of the

Minister of Environment and Lands, so she will know that she is very wrong if

she thinks that the people of this Province are not opposed to the project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon because it is

exactly one week ago today that I rose and brought this issue to the floor of

the House of Assembly. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this and let me say this

emphatically: It is, and I say to the Chair, it is unparliamentary to tell a lie

or to purposely deceive this House. I say now, that this hon. member was the

first member to stand and speak against the importation of American garbage, the

first, without a political whim.

I watch hon. members Opposite, I watch the member who just

spoke, the Member for St. John's East, who sat around for a month or two,

watched the political error, watched it develop, wanted to see which way it was

going and coming, as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, watched,

looked, waited and took their time, they did not stand on their own, never said

one word, Mr. Speaker, but now they have the petition in their hands, now they

see the wind, now they hear what is going on, now they stand up with all this

great courage. Well I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that both hon. leaders are

standing with false courage. Now let me talk about the issue and why I do and

have supported the non-importation of American Garbage.

No. 1. This Province would never be able to control the type

of garbage we would receive. That is the first fearsome problem I have with it.

Do we get toxic waste? Do we get nuclear waste? Who is going to tell the people

of Newfoundland that the containers that are coming in here with garbage in them

have just old newspapers or just household garbage? That is the first fear I

have and that has already been identified when we heard a statement from the

proponents of this project this morning, say they know how to separate metal and

there are empty containers going back and now they are trying to solidify their

position a little more. Well I have also a great fear of who controls garbage

coming out of New York. I think I know the group who controls garbage coming out

of New York. They walk around with slick hair, navy blue suits and machine guns.

That is another fear I have. They own the issue, so I have a fear of that.

Another comment I would like to make is that, the hon.

members Opposite, somebody convinced their colleague and/or their cousin, Mr.

Crosbie, to give $1 million for a feasibility study to look into burning garbage

in Long Harbour. What I would like to know is why they did not give my hon.

friends in the gallery or give somebody else $1 million to fight the cause

against it, why didn't they do that? Where was the credibility in that? Let me

continue by saying that is the issue that, number one, it is not fair.

Now if all of the garbage plants that are existing are

similar to the one that exists at Long Harbour, why does anybody need $1

million? Why don't they bring in the records of these other plants if they are

so wonderful and lay the data sheets on the table, show us about the bottom ash

and the fly ash, show us that the fly ash is scrubbed and properly contained,

siloed and what have you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no. I tell the hon. Leader of the

Opposition: You have made a political issue out of this, and you will pay the

price for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: You do not know what you are talking about.

That is your problem.

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you ban it?

MR. MURPHY: I will ban it - when the time comes. I spoke

out first against it, and I will continue to speak out against it. I will

continue. I will not support any side, any political party, in the burning of

garbage in Newfoundland. I will not! You can be sure of it!

Now if you burn toxic and/or nuclear garbage; if you scrub

that material, all you have done is condensed it. You have only condensed it, if

you contain it at the stackhead. You still have to take it; bring it back; it is

condensed; you put it in a drum - what kind of a drum? A steel drum? What kind

of a drum do you put it in? It will go away, and twenty-five, thirty, fifty, or

a hundred years later we will have a love canal on our hands. That is what will

happen in this Province.

My hon. friends opposite, when they smelled the political

wind on this - but they were long after this hon. member, I suggest to you, long

after, and he knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the bandwagon.

MR. MURPHY: - but bandwagoning is what you are doing

today. You are getting up with the petitions. This group never asked me to

present a petition, because I will fight this issue alone. I do not need any

help from anybody else. I do not need any help, but I support -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) your government.

MR. MURPHY: It does not matter. I will tell the hon.

Member for Humber East that she had no help from her caucus on lots of issues

either - lots of them - and she knows it, and I know it.

So just leave this hon. member to my sincere wish that we

never see American garbage. We have enough problems in this Province to deal

with our own garbage. We are trying now to recycle, and we should be encouraging

that program here in our own beautiful Province.

Can you imagine somebody coming in from the United States, or

from Europe, or from God knows where, on the east coast ferry, and asking one of

the crew members: What is that smoke I see? - on his way into Argentia. Oh, that

is the smoke coming from a plant that burns American garbage. Is that the kind

of message we want to send out to the world? I am not against jobs. I am totally

for jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) buffoon.

MR. MURPHY: Well perhaps the hon. Member for Grand Bank

has every right to call me a buffoon, but I have not made a political issue out

of this, and I will not make a political issue out of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I rise in support of this petition, and I do not want to get

into a debate about who was the first or who was the second or who was the

third. I think credit needs to be given to the group who are leading this fight,

and that is the group SNAG!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, it is up to every member in this

Legislature to stand up and be counted. That is what is needed - and here is the

Member for St. John's South who wants to be given credit for being the first

person. I say: Shame on you. Give credit to the people. Give credit to those who

deserve credit, and those people who are in the gallery today. Give credit to

them. They started this going, and they want their members to stand up and

support them. Do that, I say to each member here. All we have here are two or

three members on the government side getting up now and saying they are

supporting this petition - two or three members.

Go back ten or twelve years ago when they were trying to open

a uranium mine in Labrador. Was it then only two or three members on the

government side who decided to stop it? It was every member, and the government

came in and stopped the uranium mine. All this government had to do today was

come in with a small, short, down-to-earth bill saying: We are going to stop the

importation of garbage.

I am surprised, shocked, and disappointed in the Member for

St. John's South who wants to get credit -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House leader on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's

South already took

part in debate on this petition. I think it would only be

fair if he would listen now and let the Member for Torngat Mountains -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to control the

Member for St. John's South so that the Member for Torngat Mountains can have a

say on the petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Look - again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, hon. members know it is

unparliamentary to speak from your seat unless you have been recognized by the

Speaker, so I would ask the hon. Member for St. John's South to restrain

himself.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

hope he will listen to you, he doesn't listen very often.

Mr. Speaker, we must remember also that we took a very

conciliatory approach. We met right at the beginning with a Mr. Smith and a Mr.

Kirby. They came and met with me and my hon. colleague from Harbour Main. We

decided then, Mr. Speaker -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: I say to my hon. friend, the Minister of

Justice, he might have been a bully when he was a Boy Scout, but he shouldn't be

a bully in this House though.

I want to continue, Mr. Speaker, and say that we met with

those two and, from there, we decided to go and hear the public's view. We went

and heard the public's view. We had a public meeting in Placentia, in the

Dunville area, we had a public meeting here in St. John's and we heard the views

of many, many people. We came back and our caucus made a decision that we were

in support of what action they have taken and, subsequently, today we will

continue to support the endeavours of this group to make sure that American

garbage is not brought into our Province to be burned. We have much more to

offer in this Province than American garbage. I say to my hon. colleague from

St. John's South, who is shaking his head -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fifteen years while he was in

there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say, in my concluding remarks, that we are proud to stand

up and support any group that wants to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better

place to live.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member for

Humber West, I would like to welcome to the House, on behalf of hon. members

this afternoon, Mr. R.V. Wellbourne, First Secretary, Management and Consultant

Affairs, the British High Commission in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present to the House a petition similar to

those presented by the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for St. John's

East. I think anyone listening to the comments on the petition, notwithstanding

the heated remarks sometimes passed, would certainly quickly come to the

conclusion that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in the House, and that

is against any incineration of American garbage.

My colleague from St. John's South, I think, has spoken in

the House today very persuasively and eloquently, as on other occasions, with

respect to the individual reasons why this proposal should not go ahead. Those

relate to the element of control of the substances that would be incinerated.

Having said that, however, there is a broader philosophical

issue that this particular petition addresses and that is important to the

future of the Province economically as much as any other matter, and

philosophically as well. It is interesting that when I listened to the debate -

it may be hard for those who are perhaps not familiar with proceedings in the

House, but this is really a non-partisan issue. As the hon. House Leader pointed

out, the government does not, and has not, approved any particular proposal for

incineration. Nor has it even indicated that it will bring the matter forward to

any extent whatsoever. What has happened, as he pointed out, is that the federal

government has funded a study of a group that want to go ahead with this

particular proposal.

Now, when it first came to the news media, contrary to any

intervention of the provincial government or any participation in the manner in

which it came about, as was pointed out, I received an incredible response from

my district. Now, as people know, Humber West is in the City of Corner Brook and

you would not think that there would be any immediate concern. But, with the

exception of the current economic problems confronting this Province, I have

received no greater response than on the particular proposal to incinerate

American garbage here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was

uniformly contrary to the proposal in any form whatsoever, and for the very

reasons stated by this proposal.

Although it has been read, I would just like to repeat a

portion of it, and that is: to immediately stop the proposed garbage

incineration project for Long Harbour, on the basis that the incineration of

garbage goes against the principles of sustainable development and that it is

destructive, dangerous and hazardous to both human health and the environment of

this Province. That very clearly is in accord with the wishes of my constituents

and, for that reason, I oppose it. In addition to which I want to say that I am

firmly committed against a project of this type.

While on the one hand one might for various reasons think

that we would be advancing the economics of the Province by employing some

handful of people to burn American garbage. What would we really be saying?

Another speaker in this House has spoken to us about becoming perceived as the

garbage dump of North America and I concur with that sentiment. What we are

really telling people is we are opening the doors to a type of destructive

development in this Province that is not destructive solely to the environment

but also of a sense of personal dignity of every resident of this Province. We

are telling people that we consider the environment in which we live to be

nothing more than a place in which garbage could be incinerated. That we would

take waste products of other parts of this world, and that is unacceptable to

the people of this Province.

Let me say as well that to the extent there might me an

economic justification for it, that that would be more than offset by the long

term economic harm done to the prospects for development in the areas of

tourism, and in wildlife management and other educational areas that are so

important to us when we look at the prospects for development. Mr. Speaker, it

is rather ironic, if I could just conclude on that thought, that a proposal

which seems to have an economic basis, in fact, in its favour, is on the

contrary very much to be refused for that very reason. That to the extent a

handful of jobs would be created on the one hand, many more would be lost in the

long run as the result of any attempt to approve this.

So, let me just say, Mr. Speaker, in concluding that this is

not a proposal which has even come before the provincial government as of yet.

The Premier has indicated that he is opposed to this on a personal basis, my

friend and colleague the Minister of Environment and Lands, the hon. Patricia

Cowan, has indicated to me her great concern about this and I know is monitoring

it, in as much as it is being seen in the media, and is very aware of the

problems with this particular proposal. I can say to this House that I have

every confidence that if and when it comes before government that this project

will not be approved, that this is an issue which crosses party lines, that it

is more than the members of this House that oppose it, Liberals in the Province

and the NDP and Conservative members, are deeply opposed in point of principle

to the particular project and to the whole question of incineration of garbage

from any other destination here in this Province. I should say as well, in

concluding, that there are other aspects to this petition, one of which is to

develop a comprehensive waste management plan for the Province. I fully endorse

that as well and I know that the Department of Environment has individuals

working on this, because of its comprehensive nature it is going to take some

time. Coming from Corner Brook we are particularly aware of environmental issues

and the fact that recycling will be a key to our future development, not only on

a provincial basis but also with respect to any goods we hope to export. I am

delighted to present this petition. I believe it is very well founded, the

remedies sought and the suggestions made to government have great merit, Mr.

Speaker, and on behalf of my constitutions and on behalf of those individuals

who have spoken to me about it, I would certainly like to commend this petition

to my colleagues and to the government for approval. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, what are the members opposite

doing? They are not deceiving anyone. The Premier, the Minister of Environment

and Lands, the Cabinet are staying silent, refusing to address this petition of

over 6,000 residents of the Province. When asked, the Premier and the minister

are playing ostrich, hiding their heads in the sand, saying: no application has

come to us. They seem to be oblivious to the ongoing efforts to establish an

incinerator at Long Harbour, to burn imported garbage from the United States.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the Province knows what is going on, virtually all

citizens of the Province oppose the Long Harbour incinerator, yet the government

is abdicating its responsibility. The government has an opportunity to say no up

front - we do not need to wait for an application, we are not entertaining an

application for an incinerator to burn imported garbage. Mr. Speaker, the most

the members opposite can muster is two token backbench members to get up here

today in front of the audience -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wants to again quote our standing orders and ask

hon. members what it means to them. The standing orders: every member offering a

petition to the House shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from

whom it comes. The number of signatures attached to it and the material

allegations it contains. The Chair did not make the rules, the Chair is

enforcing them and asking hon. members to abide by them.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard some comments and the Chair will remind

hon. members that if it hears the comments, the Chair will address them, and

hon. members know what the comments were.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, other hon. members may know but I

am afraid I am not sure of what Your Honour was referring to. I assume you were

referring to comments made by some other member. Let me proceed. I will say that

along with the Leader of my Party and all the other members of my caucus, I

support the petition. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I call for the introduction of

legislation to ban the importation of garbage for the purpose of incineration.

For some time, I have been urging the minister and the

government to introduce a comprehensive waste management program and for a

start, show some leadership by having a recycling program within government

offices. That still has not materialized. Mr. Speaker, when the party I support

and belong to was in power, the government refused outright to allow uranium

mining in Labrador. The government refused outright to allow the storage of

toxic waste in the abandoned mine shafts on Bell Island. The party I belong to

did not delay, did not equivocate. The Premier I supported was up front in

opposing dangerous activities such as uranium mining and storage of toxic waste

on Bell Island.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the decision-makers opposite, the

Premier and the minister to stand up and be counted, to let people know one way

or the other where they stand on the proposed Long Harbour incinerator. It is no

longer acceptable for the Premier and the minister to evade the questions, to

avoid their responsibility. It is no longer acceptable for the Premier and the

minister to pretend they do not know what is going on, to say they cannot

comment until and unless they receive an application.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, on a

point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent on

myself, as an MHA sitting in the House of Assembly, as one hon. member listening

to the points put forward on a petition, that when any hon. member stands to his

or her feet to put a complaint against anything said in government, that they

should state their facts clear and true, and the hon. member knows full well, it

was myself, as an opposition member at the time, who uncovered what her

government was going to do at the time, to the people of Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not only did the

member not have a point of order, he was not uttering the truth -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: - Mr. Speaker, let me conclude, let me

conclude -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member when

she is in full flight because it is so seldom we see her with all her plumage

displayed, but, Mr. Speaker, she knows full well she cannot stand in her place

and accuse another member of not telling the truth, she knows that. She is just

simply doing it to draw attention. Unfortunately, we either have to draw

attention to her or the House will deteriorate into just a slanging match, so

surely, Mr. Speaker, on my point of order, she should be asked to withdraw the

remark.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly withdraw anything I have said that may be

considered unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member that is fine. The hon. member's

time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to

rise today to support the petition presented by my hon. colleague and friend.

A few years back, the community of Long Harbour and the

surrounding areas of Long Harbour were devastated with the closedown of the Long

Harbour phosphorus plant. Some 135 or 140 people from my district worked at Long

Harbour over a great number of year and, to date, there are still some people

from my district working at that facility, in the cleanup.

This House is already on record, in a private member's

resolution, as opposing a garbage incinerator for Long Harbour. As a matter of

fact, it indicates, and was passed unanimously in this House last year, that

unless it was proven to be environmentally, socially, psychologically, and

economically feasible, that there would be no such thing as a garbage

incinerator in Long Harbour. So I think this House is on record as being

opposed, unless all of these conditions are met.

As I travel through my district, I get different opinions. As

you know, the way that the prevailing winds blow, this particular facility will

probably have more impact on the district of Bellevue than any other district in

Newfoundland. The facility, itself, may be in Long Harbour, but we are very

close to that facility and, as we know, most of the pollution will come over

across the road into the district of Bellevue, in the communities of Chapel Arm,

Norman's Cove, Chance Cove, Long Cove, and all of these communities here.

When this particular application is filed, I will do my best,

and based on the information that I have today - I have attended quite a number

of meetings where this company has done submissions. I was in the community of

Fair Haven one night for two or three hours, listening to a presentation made by

the company that proposed this facility, and at that meeting I asked a lot of

questions of this particular company about what was happening and what was about

to happen in Long Harbour. Based on the information that company gave to me that

night, if there were a vote in this House of Assembly today, I would have to

vote against this particular facility for Long Harbour.

I think the sad part of all this is that the people of Long

Harbour and the people of Chapel Arm and those communities that were affected by

the closedown of the Long Harbour facility are desperately looking for jobs; and

why wasn't the $1 million that was allocated, not allocated to look at bringing

some other industry into that area? The Federal Government and, to some extent,

the Provincial Government, over the last number of years, have sort of sat on

their hands. And this area is hit very, very hard. I think the $1 million could

have been better utilized. There was a great resource there. The infrastructure

is there to attract some other industry, and here we are - what always bothered

me is that we can import garbage into Newfoundland, burn it, and make a profit,

but we can't bring anything else into Newfoundland and ship it out and make a

profit. We can pay for the shipping in, but we can't pay for the shipping out.

So I would like to have seen this million dollars used for a

feasibility study to attract other industry into this particular area, rather

than the importation of garbage.

I can assure you that this hon. member, when the time comes,

will speak for the majority of the residents in my district.

MR. TOBIN: Well, why don't you ask the Premier, right

now, to cancel - to bring in legislation (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: This government is not a one-man show, so

when the time comes, people will stand up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker - finally. We will carry on with

the adjourned debate on the -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman

from Kilbride.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Kilbride to restrain himself,

please.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us, if we may, carry on with the adjourned debate on Bill

No. 38, which is Order 12.

I believe the hon. gentleman from St. Mary's - The Capes

adjourned the debate, if memory serves me.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

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

I realize I only have half-an-hour or so left - a little bit

less probably - so I will just make a few points in summation because I know

there are others who want to speak on it.

For those who have forgotten or who didn't have the privilege

of being here when we were talking about the bill, the main concern raised was

not that health care boards were being set up around the Province. We are in

support of community health care boards. We have seen examples. Maybe I should

draw to the attention of some members, who may not be familiar with it, the

experimental board that is set up in the Ferryland area. Some years ago we had

visits from the Nurses' Association, public health nurses, who wanted to try a

pilot project in the Ferryland district, expanded actually into the district of

St. Mary's - The Capes as far as St. Shotts, to try to beef up the services of

the public health nurses in the area, and perhaps to have a better hands-on

delivery of health care in that total area.

This project has been a tremendous success. There are many

areas of the Province where we are depending on medical doctors who are asked to

do a tremendous amount of work that nurses could do and that trained local

personnel could do if they had some proper direction and supervision. Doctors,

themselves, do not have the time to spread themselves around to all the small

communities, to try to train people or encourage people to get involved.

Consequently, when any kind of a health problem arises, doctors are called,

quite often from their busy offices, to attend to minor needs throughout the

area. Where you have an area adequately covered by either the public health

nurses or nursing assistants or trained personnel under supervision, then a lot

of this work can be taken off the doctors' shoulders, and we have much better

overall coverage, especially for the aged and those who require some minor

medical supervision and care on certain occasions.

Consequently, with a public health service such as this,

supervised by boards, community health boards, then we can certainly improve the

lot of the people throughout the Province. One of the concerns here is, we are

only looking at a small number of boards that would be regionally centered in

the larger areas that would undoubtedly have very little time or attention to

pay to the smaller rural areas of the Province where the needs really are.

Consequently, I feel that we should have in place smaller regional boards that

could look after specific areas, boards that would have a complete knowledge of

the needs within their own areas and can make whatever decisions that are

necessary and pertinent for the people within these jurisdictions. So that is

one of the concerns.

The other major concern we have is, these boards, these major

boards that we are talking about here, will be appointed strictly by Cabinet.

That can be extremely dangerous. We could have a number of hospital boards and

community health care boards around the Province dancing to the tune and the

whim of whatever government happens to be elected at the time, especially in

times like this when governments have to cut back, where health care is such a

sensitive area and, where, if boards are appointed, friends of the government

sit on those boards and then they will tend to go along with government wishes

and not object or stand up for the needs within their own areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are the major concerns we have: One,

that the boards are much too large. In order to deliver education properly, in

order to deliver health care properly, we need people attuned with the local

situations, the local problems. Consequently, smaller boards more locally

centered, people familiar with the needs within these areas, can deliver and

observe and govern much better services than somebody who is far removed, who

has no idea at all of the local implications, the local needs, and who look at,

basically, a black and white, dollar/cents issue. Health care, education and

social services are not dollar and cent issues, as such. They are people issues

and, consequently, we should be very much aware of the people's needs and be

attuned to them. You can't do that if you are very far removed, just being fed

secondhand information. You need to be close to the scene to know exactly what

is happening so you can make proper decisions.

Once again I see the Member for Port de Grave nodding assent.

He is a very localized person, himself and realizes that in order to deliver

proper services to local areas we need smaller governing bodies, not ones that

are far removed.

So consequently, Mr. Speaker, the two things we are concerned

with: The size of the boards that are being recommended by government and,

mainly, the way these boards will be appointed, and not chosen or elected

locally, and the implications these decisions might have will have a very

negative effect on the delivery of health care in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

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

I want to have a few words on this Bill 38, as well. The

Minister of Finance sort of encouraged me to get up and get involved in the

debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what?

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Health. And I have always been

one to try to meet the request and encouragement of my colleague, the Minister

of Health, so I decided that I would have a few words to say in this debate, to

this piece of legislation that he is going to bring in to appoint all his

political buddies to hospital boards in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hospital board.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know what he is reading - they

are health boards.

MR. TOBIN: They are health - okay, well, what do you call

it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't even know what he is reading

again.

MR. TOBIN: I do know what I am reading again, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is reading and doesn't know what it

is.

MR. TOBIN: To create regional health care boards in the

Province.

DR. KITCHEN: What has that got to do with hospital

boards?

MR. TOBIN: I will tell the minister what it has to do

with it, Mr. Speaker. It is to go out and appoint political buddies like he did

in Placentia, when the hospital committee in Placentia were prepared to take on

this government when they announced they were going to close down the hospital,

that is what they did. And what did he do? He fired the hospital board. The

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs went to the then Minister of Health

and fired the hospital board who were taking him on, and then he said he was

going to appoint -

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies.

MR. TOBIN: It is not lies, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think

it is parliamentary to use the word, I really don't think so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is certainly not parliamentary to use. The Chair didn't

hear it but the Chair has mentioned before to hon. members, that one of the most

unacceptable terms in Parliament is 'lies'. I just want to bring that to hon.

members' attention again, and if the Chair hears it, or if it is brought to the

attention of the Chair that a specific member used it, then the Chair has to

bring into force the full parliamentary law.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that my

friend, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will not be using that

word again after what you just had to say. In any case, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs replaced the board in Placentia.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't.

MR. TOBIN: He replaced the members of the board in

Placentia then, let me say it that way, because he couldn't stand the heat that

was coming from Mr. Power -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, is Kevin Power and those fellows, for

example, still on the board? No, Mr. Speaker, they are not, because they took on

this government and they did the right thing to take on this government when

they decided to close down the hospital in Placentia, just as they did the right

thing throughout this Province when they had to take on hospital boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Tories.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, so what? So what, Mr. Speaker, if

they were Tories? I don't care what anyone's politics are if they can do a good

job. I wouldn't care what their politics were if they could do a good job.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I do, I care. I care what political

stripe we are.

MR. TOBIN: Well I don't, I can tell you that. But what is

happening here now is that the minister -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. EFFORD: Were they (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what their

politics are, nor do I care, as long as they were good, competent men and women.

Their politics, Mr. Speaker, are not important to me, I say to the Member for

Port de Grave. I have never practised that type of politics in the eleven years

that I have been in the House, nor do I intend to start practising it now.

Not only that now, but when they put in place these health

care boards, to whom will they be responsible? that is the question. They will

become responsible to the Cabinet through the Minister of Health, I say to the

minister, and if we have the Minister of Health sharing his concerns with the

board in the same way that he has shared the health concerns of the men and

women and children in this Province, then God help the boards.

He was Minister of Finance when himself and the now Minister

of Education shut down eight or nine hospitals in this Province. Port aux

Basques, Mr. Speaker, Placentia, out in Trinity - Bay de Verte district there

was another one closed down. They were closed down all throughout the Province.

Yes, I say to the Minister of Health: yes. They are downgraded, Mr. Speaker, and

turned into senior citizens homes and the primary care for the people in this

Province since this government came into power has never been treated so

shabbily before in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the

minister.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is better if you can skip the lines,

isn't it?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker. Well if I caught my colleague

from Kilbride - I could talk about skipping lines and all that but I want to

really get into this Bill today and point out, Mr. Speaker, how this government

continues, day in and day out, to operate in a political manner, how this

Minister of Health cannot wait to phone his buddies in Placentia, his colleagues

in Placentia or throughout. Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if myself or my

colleague from Grand Bank will be consulted in terms of having appointments made

to the board but the prominent Liberals down on the Burin Peninsula will be

contacted, I would say to the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, as long as this

minister continues to operate and to put people in positions because of their

political stripe, then the boards will not work. I think what the Minister of

Finance said, Mr. Speaker, is true. I think that is what the Minister of Finance

said when he passed along. What you are saying is true. I am not sure but I

think that is what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he said that is true.

MR. TOBIN: That is true, okay, and it is true. The former

Minister of Education, the member for St. John's North is nodding approval, Mr.

Speaker, to what I am saying. Is nodding approval to what I am saying and I am

not surprised because the member for St. John's North, Mr. Speaker, is a living

example of what I have just said. When we were in government we did not make

political appointments. We had that member, Mr. Speaker, the member for St.

John's North, a well known Liberal who had been defeated I believe, Mr. Speaker,

on a few occasions running for the Liberals, who had been defeated running for

the Liberals, Mr. Speaker. When we wanted to appoint someone to an education

board in this Province and we thought this man was the right person to serve in

that capacity we did not balk. We did not balk, Mr. Speaker, we did not balk in

the making of that appointment to that minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Former minister.

MR. TOBIN: Former minister, well that is up to him. But

he knows what I am talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker he was not and it is too bad

that he is not still a minister, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trades and

Technology, it is to bad he is not still a minister and it is to bad that Clyde

Wells decided that he could not carry the - what do they call the Education

Bill?

MR. MATTHEWS: The Royal Commission.

MR. TOBIN: The Royal Commission. It is to bad the Premier

lacked the confidence in him to carry the Williams Report. It is too bad, that

the Premier of this Province thought that the member from St. John's North would

be to decent and to honourable, to carry the load. So, Mr. Speaker, he needs

someone who is neither decent or honourable and he got the member from the

Strait of Bell Isle to carry the Royal Commission Report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: I can go along with that.

MR. TOBIN: And the member for St. John's North again nods

approval, so what I am saying must be right.

MR. MATTHEWS: Old hatchet man. The chop, the Atlanta

chop.

MR. TOBIN: Atlanta, yes. Mr. Speaker, the Atlanta chop,

there were people in this Province when they were watching that World Series

involving Atlanta, who so often made reference to the present government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Chop, chop, chop.

MR. TOBIN: - now I had the opportunity in the past couple

of days, while I was in my district, Mr. Speaker, while I was in my district I

had the opportunity to speak with people - teachers, educators, health care

workers, throughout this Province, and the same message came through loud and

clear everywhere - that the people of this Province are sick and tired of this

government continuing to chop, chop, chop.

There is another thing, Mr. Speaker, when we are on this Bill

on health care. This past Summer, I say to all my colleagues in this House, and

I thank most of them by the way; this past Summer I was involved in the

twenty-four hour relay on the Burin Peninsula, which I have been for the past

couple of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-four hour what?

MR. TOBIN: The twenty-four hour relay, and the money was

for the health care facility on the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) receipts?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something. The

minister certainly pledged support to me, as did all members, and their names

have been submitted - not all of them - some of them; some of them would not.

I want to say that on the Burin Peninsula this summer we

raised somewhere in the area of $90,000. I hope the Minister of Health is

listening to this. Ninety thousand dollars was raised on the Burin Peninsula

this year, through the twenty-four hour relay, for health care.

MR. EFFORD: In your district?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, on the whole Burin Peninsula.

MR. TOBIN: On the whole Burin Peninsula.

I also say to the Minister of Health - the Minister of Health

disappeared, but I also say that I was proud - the Minister of Education, I am

sure, would like this - to be on the team that raised the most money.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for Port de Grave that

every cent that I raised, without exception, was raised by support I received

from my colleagues in this House on both sides. Now I was only on the team.

There are a lot of other people.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do?

MR. TOBIN: We walked for twenty-four hours, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: Walked for twenty-four hours?

MR. TOBIN: That is right - ran, and ate, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No you did not. You gave me twenty dollars,

and I am expecting $100 next year from the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: For a worthy cause, yes.

MR. TOBIN: Well that is very worthy.

I say to the Government House Leader -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) so you should be careful.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Government House Leader that when

it comes to supporting worthy causes such as that - $90,000 being raised for

health care on the Burin Peninsula - I certainly will be supporting it. I say

that to my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to interrupt the hon. member. It is my duty to inform

members at 4:00 p.m. - as a matter of fact I am remiss in my duty already - to

remind hon. members of questions for the Late Show; so I apologize to the hon.

member.

The first matter is related to the question asked by the

Member for Fogo of the Minister of Education re: student aid.

The second matter of dissatisfaction was raised by the Member

for Harbour Main, and it was related to questions asked the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs with respect to utility taxation in Conception

Bay South.

The third one was raised by the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, and related to his dissatisfaction to answers given by the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs regarding the taxing of utility companies.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, this year we did raise, on the Burin

Peninsula, $90,000 and that I want to publicly thank all of my colleagues in

this House for their support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: There is one other thing I want to say, and

that is that yesterday we all received in the mail, in our post office box,

letters from the Janeway Hospital. I am sure my colleague from St. John's North,

and the Minister of Education and the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, received yesterday a letter from the Janeway Children's Hospital,

trying to raise money.

There is a letter there about a little girl. She is very

special to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jane.

MR. TOBIN: A little girl, Mr. Speaker, who is very

special to me, and I sincerely hope that hon. members in this House will again,

after reading that story, see fit to support the Janeway this Christmas in a big

way. The whole story is there. She is my niece, as a matter of fact.

MR. MATTHEWS: I have that at home in my apartment.

MR. TOBIN: We all got them, yes.

I will ask all members of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, this

Christmas to think about the Janeway Hospital when they read that story and make

a contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Minister of Health -

MR. MATTHEWS: Look at John. You put him asleep. Look! You

have him put to sleep over there.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we certainly will grant leave to

the minister if he wants to have a little nap. We will grant leave to him, Mr.

Speaker. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the minister awake, because

I have never had that opportunity yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: It would be a first in this House.

MR. TOBIN: It would be a first, yes, if we could see that

minister awake.

In any case, I am about to clue up, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

Minister of Health that when he appoints these regional health care boards to

make sure that they are done in a fair and equitable way.

MS. VERGE: We should elect them.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Make sure that they are not

all clones, make sure that they are not all grouped together, to justify a

political need, to ensure that it is not done for political purposes with the

main and sole aim being to satisfy the needs of Liberals in this Province, as

scarce as they are getting.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, in closing, to the Minister of

Health, to put some teeth into these committees. Once you set up these boards,

don't do what you did the other day, for example, on the Burin Peninsula, with

the hospital which the Government House Leader fought against when he was

Minister of Health in the Smallwood Government, don't pick up the phone some day

and say I want you to cut $231,000 from your health care budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. TOBIN: $231,000. That is what the Burin Peninsula

health care system was slashed by this year, slashed also last year, Mr.

Speaker. And I say to the Minister of Health, that that is one place and one

facility, one institution that I and my colleague from Grand Bank take a lot of

pride in. Because when the Liberals were in power the present Government House

Leader, who is coming in now with the Minister of Health, who said, an improved

ambulance service to Clarenville is enough for the people of the Burin

Peninsula. Well, Mr. Speaker, we did not accept -

MS. VERGE: Who said that?

MR. TOBIN: The Government House Leader when he was

Minister of Health with Smallwood.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What did he say?

MR. TOBIN: He said, he was building no hospital on the

Burin Peninsula, an improved ambulance service would be sufficient to satisfy

the medical needs.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the minister that he made the

statement in St. Gabriels Hall.

MR. ROBERTS: I was there and the hon. gentleman was not.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, wasn't I?

MR. ROBERTS: There were no rocks there, the hon.

gentleman couldn't have been there.

MR. TOBIN: Couldn't he? Well, Mr. Speaker, there was one

there on two legs. There was a rock there on two legs when it came to dealing

with the people of this Province. Not only a rock, Mr. Speaker, but he had a

heart of rock, to go down there and tell the people of the Burin Peninsula the

best they could expect was an improved ambulance service.

MR. MATTHEWS: A heart of stone.

MR. TOBIN: A heart of rock, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: They were going to resettle them all

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Motel Mortier.

MR. TOBIN: It was in St. Gabriels Hall.

MR. ROBERTS: Motel Mortier.

MR. WOODFORD: You didn't even know where you were.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is the old shoe shiner saying, Mr.

Speaker, old secondhand shoes?

Now, Mr. Speaker, not only did that member, when he was

Minister of Health, not want to put a health service on the Burin Peninsula, he

wanted to resettle rural Newfoundland. That was his agenda, Mr. Speaker, the

resettlement of rural Newfoundland, and let all the health care needs of this

Province be served from metropolitan St. John's.

They did not want to go outside the overpass, that was the

health care structure of this Province, very much so. What is the Minister of

Health saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, he is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he talking about?

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Government House Leader that I

have been around this House now for eleven years and you talk about these

petitions that were being presented in the House today, and you talk about the

environment and everything else, when, what better demonstration to support the

environment in this Province than to recycle a politician, I say to the

minister. What better demonstration, what better way to help the environment

than to recycle a politician, I would say to the Government House Leader. But I

want to say I understand my colleague for St. John's East; my friend and

colleague for St. John's East wants to make a few comments in this debate and we

do have the Late Show this evening, so in doing so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr.Speaker, when the minister gets up we will

have the funny show. I would say to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, to

forget about appointing these boards, have them elected, be a first; be the

first minister in this administration to elect health care boards in this

Province, the same as they have elected health care boards in other provinces in

this country, that is what the Minister of Health should do, forget his

political appointments and his buddies, and bring in place an election for

health care boards in this Province. That is my request to the Minister of

Health and I hope he will take my advice.

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

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

There is something in this Bill I would like to, if I could

have the minister;s attention, I understand there are going to be five

particular boards and I gather from what was said in the estimates that of those

five boards, there would be four on the Island - and I am sure the minister is

listening - I understand there are going to be five particular boards, four on

the Island and one in Labrador. I gather that this particular board and the

hospital boards will go hand in hand -

Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague that this was the

information that was given by the former Minister of Health in the committee

meetings, there would be four particular boards on the Island and one for

Labrador. I would like to ask the minister, when he is addressing this

particular issue, I understand that this hospital board will co-ordinate and

co-operate with the hospital boards as such in a particular area.

Now, at the present time we have the Grenfell Regional Health

Services Hospital Board which takes in all the way from Roddickton, all the way

up the Northern Peninsula and all of Labrador, and I will ask the minister, if

you are going to have a board in Labrador, one of the five boards being in

Labrador, how well will that work in co-ordinating with the Northern Peninsula

which comes under the hospital board which takes in all of the Northern

Peninsula and all of Labrador?

I believe there should be one board for Labrador. I believe

that we should take from Roddickton to St. Anthony, also with the hospital

board. The Grenfell Regional Hospital Services Board should be smaller and

shoul