November

9, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 53

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on

November 3rd, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stated that all

government departments and agencies were directed to review expenditure programs

and identify immediate savings to offset a $60 million revenue shortfall for

this year.

The shortfall, identified in the first half of this year, is

the result of lower federal estimates of payments under the major transfer

programs, particularly equalization and personal and corporate income taxes.

As hon. members know, the fiscal year for municipalities ends

December 31st, and councils are now in the process of preparing their budgets.

It is therefore incumbent on us to immediately announce expenditure reductions

occurring this year so that municipalities impacted by any changes will be in a

position to make the necessary adjustments. The expenditure reduction that I am

announcing today has to do with the Municipal Operating Grant, the MOG.

Since 1993, a Municipal Operating Grant in the amount of

$41,500,000 has been paid to municipalities on a quarterly basis to assist in

meeting general operating expenses.

Government has decided that there will be an average

reduction of 22 per cent in the Municipal Operating Grant to municipalities for

the calendar year 1996.

The average reduction results from government's decision to

reduce the Municipal Operating Grant in 1995-96 by $4.1 million and by $7.5

million for the fiscal year of 1996-97.

Individual municipalities will be notified as to the specific

impact on their respective grants after the formula is applied. This information

will be available to the municipalities early next week.

Mr. Speaker, government does realize that this is indeed a

harsh measure for our municipalities; however, I want to assure hon. members

that it was not taken lightly. Every available option was explored and the

decision which we have taken is essential if we are to ensure the fiscal -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair can't hear the hon. minister. I ask hon. members to

refrain from interjecting.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, every available option was

explored and the decision which we have taken is essential if we are to ensure

the fiscal stability of government and its ability to provide essential public

programs on a sustainable basis.

Since assuming the portfolio of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs almost three years ago, I have worked closely with elected municipal

officials in an attempt to achieve maximum efficiency with respect to the

provision of local government services. I think that together we have achieved a

great deal of success. As a former mayor and councillor, I have some

understanding and appreciation of the difficulties being experienced by

councils; however, I am confident that, in spite of these reductions, mayors and

councillors around this Province will continue to work in the best interest of

their citizens and in the overall best interest of all the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my reaction is one of absolute

shock. The third level of government has been abandoned by this Provincial

Government. What we have today is a breach of faith by this government in the

councils of this Province. What we have is more downloading. We have more

communities which won't be able to meet their commitments and live within their

budgets. We are going to see the potholes getting bigger, we are going to see

the streetlights turned off, we are going to see more out-migration, jobs lost,

water quality will be compromised. We are going to be back to the Newfoundland

and Labrador of forty years ago.

We have a situation where, not surprisingly, many municipal

councillors and mayors in this Province are becoming discouraged more and more

every day by the persistent and pervasive negativity associated with their

desire to be good community-minded citizens. That is what they want to do, to do

things for municipalities. With a drop like this of 22 per cent, that is really

$9 million over the period we are talking about here. We can't expect the third

level of government to continue its mandate if there is going to be this kind of

breach of faith in them by this minister and his government.

Things are bad now in rural Newfoundland; things are going to

get a lot worse. There are 113 municipalities in trouble now. That number will

go up because they have no other choices. Mr. Speaker, people cannot afford to

pay more taxes. We have 90 per cent unemployment in some communities and the

choices this government offers them is, move out, move to the mainland of

Canada, or in other words let us get back to basic old fashion resettlement. At

least thirty or forty years ago we called it by its right name.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: I have questions for the Premier. Will the

Premier confirm that the Chrtien government has briefed him about the federal

government's plans to drastically reduce the already proportionately small

Canadian Forces presence in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Yesterday the news media reported that the Department of

National Defence is intending to cut personnel at the Canadian forces base in

Gander by 60 per cent and eliminate 325 jobs. Gander MP George Baker said, worse

than that hundreds of jobs will be cut at Goose Bay, and the Canadian forces

station at St. John's will be closed. Will the Premier tell the House his

understanding of the federal government military cuts that are coming and what

these cuts will mean to this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are half a dozen questions there and

I will try and answer all that I remember. The first one, was I briefed by the

Chrtien government as to the details of these cuts? The answer is, no, I had

the same briefing that all people had as a result of last year's Budget which

predicted cuts of this magnitude in general terms but not specifically related,

except to the extent that it identified certain bases in the country for

closing. I believe there was some mention of Gander in last year's Budget but I

do not specifically remember.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the federal government must

reduce its expenditures in order to get the nation's finances in order. Nobody

can argue with that. We have acknowledged that from the beginning. If that has

to be done I think most people in the country will take the approach that with

what has happened with the cold war, with the disappearance of the cold war, the

need for the level of military that we had in the past has diminished, so the

military is one of the first areas that will suffer the cuts, and frequently an

area that will suffer cuts most severely.

What I have said to the federal government in response to

that is when you look at the level of Department of National Defense activity in

Newfoundland, by comparison with say New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, there is such

a low level of activity here that you should not even think of any reduction of

units in this Province until you've dealt with units in other provinces where

there is a much higher level of Department of Defence activity - the provinces

of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland - Saskatchewan has even less than Newfoundland

does. So that will tell you how small the defence establishment is there. So

those two provinces in particular, Mr. Speaker, do not get any significant

economic benefit from the Department of Defence presence. Now that is the

position that I've taken with them. What I can't say to the federal government

is we don't want you to cut your budget. If they don't cut the defence budget

they are going to be cutting other things more severely and impact even more

severely on the Province.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is the Premier of this Province standing here

today and saying to the people of the Province that he does not know how many

federal government Department of National Defence and Canadian forces jobs the

Chrtien Government is going to cut in this Province over the next couple of

years? Is he saying he does not know because he does not care?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two questions, the first

question is, `Is he saying he doesn't know?' The answer is yes. `Is he saying he

doesn't know because he doesn't care?' The answer is no.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier tell the House and the people of the

Province what he has done to defend, guard and protect federal government

Department of National Defence and Canadian forces jobs in this Province? He

acknowledges we have had a disproportionately small number of jobs, why now is

he passive and politically impotent in the face of disproportionately large

cuts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can't answer the question because the

question has no validity. I am not passive nor politically impotent.

Mr. Speaker, I have just given the House the detail but

obviously the hon. member was not listening or she had her question that had to

be read anyway, I don't know which. But let me repeat, the position that we have

taken on a consistent basis - and I sat down in meetings with the Minister of

Finance, the Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, I have done it

in meetings with the Prime Minister, with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

and spelled out Newfoundland's position and I have written the position in

detail, Mr. Speaker, spelling out clearly that the federal government has a

responsibility to ensure that the expenditure of federal funds benefits all

parts of the Province and in the past in terms of national defence matters that

has not been the case. It is not peculiar to the present federal government; it

is a legacy of all of the years that we have been a Province of Canada, and the

former Tory federal government cut as well in this Province. As a matter of

fact, the most severe treatment this Province ever got was when John Crosbie sat

in the federal Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have consistently taken the

position with the federal government that one of the ways in which they can help

deal with the problem they did cause in terms of the closure of the groundfish

fishery is to provide for a greater level of federal presence, and there is a

variety of means by which they can do that. The new air navigation system should

be located in Gander. That is where it belongs, and that is where the federal

government should place it. I have told them that. They should help us establish

a free trade zone in Argentia. Federal policy measures can help us do that. They

should increase the level of defence activities in Newfoundland by diverting

them. Instead of bringing the fighter units back from Germany to Quebec, they

should have put one in Goose Bay or in Gander. This is where it belongs. Clearly

the federal government has that responsibility.

I have been saying it publicly and I have been trying my best

to persuade the federal minister to do that. Unless and until I am elected as

Prime Minister of Canada, and I do not know whether or not that will ever happen

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - but unless and until I am elected to be

Prime Minister of Canada -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, unless and

until I am elected to be the Prime Minister of Canada I cannot direct those

decisions; I can only try my very best to pressure them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, God help the people of Canada if

he ever crucified them the way he has crucified Newfoundlanders in the past

seven years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious now that

Newfoundlanders are receiving, as the Premier said, a disproportion of

assistance as it relates to the cuts in the Department of National Defence, and

the same is happening as it relates to the UI cuts. It now appears that the

federal Minister of Human Resources will announce next week - next Thursday, I

believe - that his department will make drastic cuts, that the cuts will be

brutal and cruel upon the seasonal employees of this Province. Will the minister

confirm that people in Newfoundland who depend on UI will receive less payments

than they are receiving right now?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. No, I

can't confirm, for the obvious reason -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask George Baker.

MR. MURPHY: No, George can't either. Because "expected"

is the word that is associated with what Mr. Baker had to say, from the news

reports I have. The Premier yesterday was asked the same question from the

Leader of the Opposition. The Premier said to the Leader of the Opposition: No,

he had received no official report. I reaffirmed that I had no official report.

MS VERGE: You have been briefed.

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, no, I

have not been briefed. Even though we have requested information, we've sought

information, we've written and asked for information, we have not been

officially told. I say that to the Leader of the Opposition, I say it to the

Member for Burin - Placentia West. If Mr. Baker can stand confidently and

support the accusations and the claims that he has made in the reduction, he has

a source that I don't have, I would say to the member and to the Leader of the

Opposition. I don't have it. I have not been officially given the information

that Mr. Baker has quoted in the paper today. No, I have not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. Member for Grand Bank

again, you can't do anything else only bring forward the information that you

have received officially. I am sure that the hon. members opposite would be

upset and disturbed if any minister of government did anything less than that.

I'm not prepared to answer or support any of the claims of Mr. Baker until we've

heard from Mr. Axworthy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to be brief with his answer.

MR. MURPHY: Simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is strange the minister

doesn't know anything today when yesterday he said in this House: The hours will

work out on a thirty-six hour week. Let's say that for the first entry it is now

twenty-six weeks, and we will know, Mr. Speaker, from what I am hearing, that it

will come somewhere in the vicinity of twenty-two-and-a-touch weeks.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well what is coming

down, even though he has sat silently by.

Will the minister confirm that you will need twelve weeks and

a minimum of thirty-five hours a week and that, Mr. Speaker, will be spread out

over twenty weeks, which means, that a person with twelve weeks will have to

wait an additional eight weeks before he can apply for the unemployment

insurance - before he can even apply - and then, with the 2 per cent reduction

for seasonal employees in this Province, that a person today who receives $300 a

week, will eventually end up getting $140 a week, UI, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that something is

really happening here, that this minister, who has not stood up and defended

Newfoundland, can't confirm anything, knows nothing about what's happening, and

this is about a crisis that is going to fall on the seasonal employees of this

Province.

Let me ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will he immediately set

up a meeting with Lloyd Axworthy and put together a Select Committee of this

House, and let the people go up and tell Mr. Axworthy about the serious

situation here? Because it is obvious, Premier, that your minister has not done

it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is, absolutely not. I wouldn't

invite such a disaster, and I think it would be a disaster if that's what, in

fact, occurred. I have every confidence in the minister and the Minister of

Health, who is Chairman of the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet has done it

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education and Training.

PREMIER WELLS: - The Minister of Education and Training

rather, is Chairman of the Social Policy Committee. I have every confidence in

them and I have no doubt they will continue to justify that confidence.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

I spoke with a constituent yesterday who is off work since

December 1st, of last year, whose sick leave runs out in a month's time. This

man has experienced extreme pain and has seen several doctors on referrals over

that period.

He was finally scheduled for major surgery for tomorrow at

the Health Sciences Centre. His wife applied and received leave to be with him

during this crucial time; however, he received a call on Tuesday indicating that

his surgery was postponed until the end of this month because there was no

anaesthetist available. Now, I have spoken with several other people who have

had their surgery cancelled over the past several weeks for the very same

reason.

It is ironic that this man, a health care worker for over

twenty years, is now experiencing our declining system from a patient's

perspective. Surgeries are often cancelled due to a lack of operating rooms, a

lack of critical care beds - now, they are being cancelled due to the lack of an

anaesthetist.

There is a problem when this is happening on an ongoing basis

at the Health Sciences Complex, and I ask the minister: What does he plan to do

to address this ongoing problem?

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

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

The hon. member makes a very good speech, but to the specific

question that he has asked, if he is prepared to give me the details of the

situation to which he refers, I will commit to him to give it the utmost

attention and review it to see if there is anything untoward happening in terms

of process or in terms of scheduling. I have no information or no basis to

believe that anything is happening other than what should be happening in terms

of scheduling surgeries and those sorts of things, but if there is an anomaly in

the system or something happening that is so substantially out of whack with

what the norm would be, I would be happy to investigate it and to report to the

House.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Since August, there have been numerous heart surgeries

cancelled because of the lack of an anaesthetist; there have been back surgeries

cancelled due to the lack of an anaesthetist. I say it is not a single, isolated

case; I have several names of people whose surgeries have been cancelled. It is

an ongoing problem, not an isolated case, and I ask the minister: What will he

do about it? Would he check and see what can be done about this problem?

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

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

I have already indicated to the member that if he is prepared

to give me the information, the details, I would be happy to do that. To the

point though, that he raised with respect to waiting list and heart surgery, it

is true that about a month to six weeks ago we did have a waiting list of about

200 people. I checked the day before yesterday to update myself on what the

waiting situation was with respect to heart surgery and I am told that the list

now is down to I think 100 people, not 200, waiting for heart surgery, and there

are additional people waiting for valve-replacement type procedures. So the

waiting list from the time the House opened, actually, has reduced considerably

and I am pleased to report, I would call it, good information, to the House for

the benefit of the people of the Province and for the information of the hon.

member who raises the point.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would prefer today to be asking questions of my colleague,

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but I will do more research

and come back to the MOGs on another day. My questions today are for the

Minister of the Environment.

Landfill garbage disposal sites are found throughout the

Province and most are operated by municipalities, or by groups of

municipalities. Can the minister confirm that there is no such thing as minimum

standards or operational criteria for landfill sites in the Province, and that

the standard of operations for such sites varies from one municipality to

another?

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

MR. AYLWARD: I appreciate the question from the hon.

member. We have a problem with landfills in the Province, for some time. Over

the past twelve months, the Province, through the Department of the Environment

and the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, has been doing an

evaluation of the problem with the landfills we have. We are looking at new

regulations to regulate the operations of landfills, and we are also looking at

closing down some landfills and doing regional waste management. So there is a

major effort under way and we are making some progress, both departments. The

Federation of Municipalities are very interested in this matter and we are

working very closely with them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the

operation of the landfill sites can have serious implications for a lot of

different people. Of course, the Minister of the Environment knows that it

affects health, property values, the safety of individuals, and tourism,

etcetera. I want the minister to assure the House that his new landfill site

regulations, which is, in itself, the absence of the regulations, is a serious

flaw in the departmental regulations. Will they be ready by January of next

year? Will there be any consultation with municipalities? Will there be

established criteria that will definitely say which ones meet the criteria,

which ones do not, and what consultation will occur with the municipalities and

other interested groups?

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

MR. AYLWARD: I can tell the member, this is a major issue

for this government. We have done an extensive amount of consultation already.

We had a consulting firm hired last year who did visits around all the

communities in this Province. We are getting ready for some new regulations and,

I believe, in a very short period of time, we will be in a much better position.

We are also in the position of cleaning up and dealing with a lot of problems

that weren't dealt with years ago.

We have over 200 landfills out there that weren't regulated,

were this and that, and were let go, and we are trying to deal with that

situation. I am optimistic that we will make some major progress in the next

twelve to twenty-four months. We have a lot of work to do and, I think, it is a

more opportunity for us to deal with this, so that it can be beneficial to us

all in the future. We are all working on it diligently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Social Services.

Yesterday, officials from the minister's department were in my district to visit

the Social Services office in St. Mary's. The purpose of the visit, I believe,

was to discuss possible changes to the delivery of programs in the area. This

morning, I talked to staff at various Social Services offices throughout the

for delivery of services. I ask the minister: What are government's plans

relating to the district offices throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and will

the proposed changes mean the loss of jobs and/or the reduction of services to

the Province?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Everything is under review today, and certainly, when any

decisions are made and I am ready to announce them they will be disclosed to

everybody.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the

possibility of the amalgamation of Social Services offices. The record of this

government in relation to amalgamation, Mr. Speaker, is dismal. There are

forty-seven district offices in this Province, forty-three of them outside St.

John's. I would like to ask the minister: of these offices that now provide a

number of services, such as financial support, youth corrections, child welfare

and so on, how many will close and how many will just become satellite offices

with a very limited number of available programs?

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

MS YOUNG: I have to make a correction here, Mr. Speaker.

There are actually fifty district offices in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, there are actually fifty district

offices in this Province. With regard to any changes that we make, yes I say

that everything is under review and if changes are made I will certainly make

announcements.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister, if the number there

at the present time is not important, what is going to be there after you're

finished, is what I'm concerned about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, never before in recent history

has there been such a need for social services. With the economic downturn in

our Province many people have had to turn to social assistance for the first

time in their lives. The increase in all types of stress, family problems,

hungry children and so on, Mr. Speaker, leads me today to ask the minister,

instead of cuts, instead of taking away and reducing, would you please commit to

extra hiring of much needed social workers in this Province?

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

MS YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the services

that we provide in this Province. We have every intention of providing the best

possible service to the people who need and come to our department. Just last

year one of the offices was combined out in my district with another office and

it was just bringing together all of the staff. We still provide the best

service we possibly can. We want to make sure that any dollars that we save and

any changes that we make will be of absolute benefit to the people that we serve

in rural Newfoundland. It is not our intention to cut services. It is our

intention to maintain services in the best possible way we can in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

I ask the minister if his department is having any input or

is he being consulted personally with the early retirement program for fishermen

and fish plant workers now being formulated by the Federal Minister of Human

Resources, Mr. Axworthy?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, we have had two or three

discussions about the early retirement program, as the member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

program, as the member probably is aware, comes under the jurisdiction of two

federal ministers. DFO and Minister Tobin are responsible for the fishers

component of the early retirement program and of course plant workers come under

HRDC and/or the minister responsible, Minister Axworthy. We have been dealing

with both these ministers now and we are very hopeful that we will have that

situation signed and in place within a month - within three to four weeks.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

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

ask the minister if he or his government are having second thoughts,

reconsidering the option of allowing fishermen and fish plant workers to retire

from the fishing industry at age fifty now that transfer payments from Ottawa

are being reduced and the cost of taking

part in the program will be a bargain

at 30 per cent provincially and 70 per cent federally?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Perhaps a bargain in the mind of the member.

Mr. Speaker, the member is fully aware, as all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

are aware, that it is a very difficult time to try to find extra funding for all

kinds of programs but let me say to the member that we are committed to the

original position of fifty-five to sixty-four. That is the area where it will

take a committed amount of funding over that period of time on behalf of the

provincial government and federal government. When the program is totally ready

you can be sure that the two federal ministers and this minister will be happy

to announce it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How can the

minister justify not wanting to take

part in a program that will cost the

provincial government thirty cents per dollar versus dollar for dollar, Mr.

Speaker? I cannot understand how the minister can stand here and talk about the

value of the dollar and talk about the financial crisis we are in, to hear again

he is going back to Ottawa and saying that we will give you more and more. For

God's sake, get up boy and take on Ottawa -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and fight for Newfoundlanders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and go and try to get our people to

retire with dignity here in this Province!

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

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I

didn't hear a question in the member's statement so all I would say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I can no more justify -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - what he is trying to justify, or to justify

why he is here.

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

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

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It concerns the report that is

anticipated next week by the former Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

Winston Baker, on the Newfoundland Dockyard.

I want to know whether the minister or his government has had

discussions or consultations with Mr. Baker about his plans and proposals, and

whether or not he has any reason to believe, based on those discussions or

consultations, or the Newfoundland Dockyard workers ought to have any

confidence, that the Dockyard will continue beyond December of this year?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can report is

that I've had a telephone conversation in the last number of days with Mr.

Baker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Winston Baker. He is waiting to brief the

federal Minister of Transport and Newfoundland's minister in the Cabinet, Mr.

Tobin. Until such time as he has briefed the federal people he is going to wait

until he notifies the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have expected

the minister to say that he had a task force of ministers and officials working

closely with the former minister to ensure that the Newfoundland Dockyard stays

there, given its importance to the workers and people of this Province.

I want to ask the minister, whether his government is

prepared to do anything to ensure the continuation of the Newfoundland Dockyard

beyond the end of this year? Or is it prepared to see the federal government

scuttle that, the same way as it scuttled the South Coast ferries and they are

scuttling the road cruiser service, defence projects in Gander?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Is the minister prepared to do anything?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I've had a number of meetings

with Mr. Baker. He has met with the five unions involved, with the management

involved. He is waiting to give his report to the federal ministers. Yes, I've

told him what the Province's position is. We are willing to be as creative as is

possible to keep the Dockyard open.

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

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

a question for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier could inform the House how

many people are within the provincial public service system, or management

system, who have deputy minister status? Could the Premier inform us of that?

Considering there are fourteen departments, I'm wondering how many people have

deputy minister status.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I think there would be about thirteen or

fourteen in the departments. Then there are certain Crown agencies that have

deputy minister status. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing would be one; ENL

would be another one, Workers Compensation, which would be another one. I think

the Clerk of the House has deputy minister status or near abouts, something of

that nature. There are a number of others. I will get a count and provide the

count. I can't give you exactly. There is one for every department and there are

others.

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

House Leader.

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

appreciate the Premier saying he will get the information for us, but I've heard

that there are about twice as many people with deputy minister status as there

are departments. I don't know if that is correct or not but I'm sure the Premier

will.... There are certainly more people with deputy minister status than there

are the ones, say, with each department, I'm sure the Premier knows that.

While the Premier is doing it, the supplementary is: Would he

as well table for the House, or inform the House, of how many people are within

the system with assistant deputy minister status? So that we can see the deputy

minister status and the assistant deputy minister status that is in the

provincial system to date.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Most certainly. I will get them all, Mr.

Speaker. Another one I just remembered, the Auditor General would have deputy

minister status as well. There is a handful of others too. What I will do is I

will - just so that the House will be fully informed, and have something that

they can compare, I will get the 1989 list. I will produce the 1988 list as

well, 1989 list, and provide some comparison.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 32.(4) of the

Auditor General's Act, I am pleased to table the Auditor's Report and Financial

Statements of the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1995.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I shall, on tomorrow, ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act And The

Electoral Boundaries Act".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: My one regret is that although the bill is

now being printed it will not be available for the weekend, so my hon. friend

from Burin - Placentia West will not be able to spend the weekend reading it,

but it will be in the House on Tuesday.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Executive Council".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WILLIAM ANDERSEN III: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on next Wednesday, ask leave to

introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS the federal fisheries policies in relation to

groundfish licence retirement are discriminatory to many fishermen and plant

workers throughout the Province, and especially in the district of Torngat

Mountains; and

WHEREAS federal policy states that the groundfish licence

holders eligible for TAGS are the only groundfish licence holders who will be

eligible for the retirement program; and

WHEREAS there are many fishermen and plant workers throughout

the Province who for generations have relied on the fishery for a living and are

not recognized under the TAGS program; and

WHEREAS it can be proven that thousands of fishermen and

plant workers who just happened to be involved in the fishery at an arbitrary

date set by DFO, and not because of their historical attachment to the

groundfish fishery, are on TAGS as opposed to those who fished thirty, forty,

fifty years or more and still do not qualify;

called upon to include those fishermen and plant workers who can demonstrate a

historical attachment to and activity in the prosecution of the groundfish

fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yesterday during Question Period the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount asked me about a $1.5 million revenue item in the budget.

The $1.5 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: $1.8 million, was it? $1.5 million I thought it

was. Basically, I want to inform the House that the $1.8 million was a shortfall

in the budget of the department which I would have had to save some time during

this fiscal year, and if I am not mistaken I think it was included in the

announcement today when I made the comments about the MOG, so it was $1.5

million that I had to save in the department and it was reflected over on the

other side. I hope that answers his question.

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

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

In response to a question asked yesterday by the hon. the

Member for Ferryland when he indicated there were approximately 100 medically

discharged people in acute care beds in the St. John's area at any given time, I

checked with the system yesterday and I am told that there is, on average, about

forty-five to fifty people on any given day probably who would be medically

discharged, waiting for movement out of the institution. That is about half of

what the hon. member indicated, but that figure is the right figure, the factual

one.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is only off by 100 per cent.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: He is off by 100 per cent, yes.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl asked me some

questions concerning the tenders received for the sale of the Holiday Inns and

Hotel Port aux Basques, which was not part of the Holiday Inn chain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I am about to give a

summary of

the tenders for the Holiday Inns and Hotel Port aux Basques. I will do them by

hotel and then do the general groupings.

First, there was one tender for St. John's from Lord God The

Father Almighty Hospitality Inn Limited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Her, her; I say to the hon. member, her.

It was in the amount of $1.3 million however, the offer was

not acceptable as the company submitted a deposit which was less than the

required 3 per cent of the amount tendered. There were a number of conditions to

the tender; one was that a deposit was required and that satisfactory financing

had to be provided within ten days.

There were two bids for Clarenville. One from Leonards

Holdings Limited in the amount of $1,100,000. This offer met all the tender

requirements but was not recommended on the basis of price. We also received,

secondly, from another group of interested parties, a company to be

incorporated, N. V. Bruce Pardy on behalf of N. V. Bruce Pardy, Rex Anthony,

Basil Dobbin and Richard Pardy in the amount of $850,500. Again, this met all

the tender requirements but again, was not recommended on a basis of price. In

respect to Clarenville it was second as between the two individual bids.

In the case of Corner Brook, there was one bid received from

Northern Construction and Insulatin Limited in the amount of $1, 310,000. There

was no individual tender for Gander. In the case of Port aux Basques, there were

three tenders. One from T. F. Holdings to be incorporated. I believe Mr. Tom

Tobin was a proponent in the amount of $180,000; again, they met all the tender

requirements but was not recommended on the base of price.

Hubert Chaulk who was the highest tender, tendered $210,000

and met all the tender requirements. There was one from Darrel House in the

amount of $156,000 which also met all the tender requirements but was low on

price.

There was one bid for all four franchise, Holiday Inn

properties at St. John's, Clarenville, Gander and Corner Brook, that was Fortis

Properties Corporation in the amount of $6,275,000. This met all the tender

requirements and this and the Chalk offer were the ones that were accepted for

the five properties.

There were two bids received for all five properties. One was

from Atlific Newfoundland Limited, $6,500,000 but it did not meet the tender

requirements in a number of respects. The first was that the tender was

conditional upon the purchaser obtaining EDGE status, which would give them

preference and subsidies and the second problem with it was that, it was not a

clean offer, they wanted to provide the money over ten years and that was not in

accordance with the tender.

There was a second bid for all five properties from Canadian

Hospitality Group or its designate and Alywards

(1975) Limited or its designate

and James Chalker was the agent for the Offerors, that was in the amount of

$5,600,000. This was not an exceptional tender either as it was conditional upon

the offer having thirty days to demonstrate satisfactory financing as opposed to

Now looking at the individual properties, if one added up

Gander for which there was no tender, but the combination of single bids for St.

John's at $1.3 million, Clarenville at $1.1 million and Corner Brook at $1.310,

million would have totalled $3.710 as opposed to the tender offer we accepted in

the amount of $6, 275,000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we call petitions, I would like to

welcome on behalf of all hon. members to the House of Assembly, Mrs. Betty

Gilbert, the Mayor of Come By Chance in the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the

constituents of my district. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is as

follows:

To the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS the Janeway Child Health Centre has served the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and their children for more than twenty-five years

as the only acute care children's hospital; and

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador show their

support for the Janeway by contributing millions of dollars every year to

enhance the services provided by the children's hospital;

WE THE UNDERSIGNED support the continuation of a stand-alone

children's hospital to provide quality health care for the children of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of several petitions I have

presented on behalf of people in the District of St. Mary's - The Capes as it

relates to the government's plans to close down the Janeway Hospital and move it

to a site adjacent to the Health Sciences Complex as an adjoining building.

Mr. Speaker, for a minute, if I could talk about the history

of the Janeway and the services it has provided for the people of this Province

over the years. Because as we said before in this House, it is a provincial

hospital, not so much a city hospital. People from throughout this Province, in

Labrador, have travelled to the Janeway for child health care services and have

been provided with first-class services from the staff and from the medical

people at that institution.

Over the past couple of years there certainly has been need

for some type of upgrading of the building itself, and certainly some concerns

as it relates to the structure. The important thing I think that people are

starting to realize, and the major thing that they are concerned about, is the

fact that the change that the government is planning will take away the feeling

or the atmosphere of a children's hospital. I believe that is the major concern

that is being raised here.

While the Janeway Child Health Centre has provided the care,

it has also provided an atmosphere where both the patient as children and the

parents feel at home. I myself have had experience of having to take my children

to the Janeway. Once you walk inside the door there is an atmosphere that

definitely coincides with the fact of it being a children's hospital.

My concern is, and I'm sure that the people of my district

who put forward this petition here today in the House are concerned about the

fact that the plan to move the Janeway, we really don't know exactly what the

plans are. We know an outline of what the government plans to do in taking the

Janeway Hospital and moving it and joining it with the Health Sciences building,

but exactly what are they planning? Is it going to be a children's wing to

itself? Are there going to be different wards that are going to be assigned for

children where you will have to come out of one wing of the hospital, down a

hallway, and into another wing?

The concern that has been raised by people in my district who

talk to me about this issue is the concern not so much of the medical services -

because the people who provide the medical services and the equipment and

everything else I believe will be part of the change that is taking place - but

it is the atmosphere of a children's hospital, the feeling of the children

having their own place, I think, that is the major concern that is being brought

forward through this petition and through the concerns I have had raised to me.

Another concern that people have is that due to the financial

restraint that government finds itself under, and due to the cutbacks and the

reduction in services, there is a concern that the millions of dollars that have

been raised in this Province to help bring proper equipment and improved

equipment to the Janeway Child Health Centre, this will pose a problem to

continue that type of fund-raising here. Because the people can associate with a

children's hospital now. The fact that it is going to be moved and joined with

the Health Sciences Centre, people may not feel as comfortable with it, that all

the funding will be going into the children's concern in the health care system.

I guess this is another issue that is being brought forward

again through this petition. Because as we know, and we look back on the history

of the dollars that have been donated and the dollars that have been raised for

the Janeway Hospital over the years, the level of gratitude and the level of

support that the people of this Province have shown the Janeway is second to

none. Even from the people of St. Mary's - The Capes and throughout the

Province.

I'm pleased today to bring forward this petition. From what I

can gather there are other petitions circulating in my district. This petition

is mostly from the community of St. Bride's. People in the community of St.

Bride's, 95 per cent of this petition is from those people, many of whom had had

reason over the past number of years to visit

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - the Janeway Hospital. I hope that the

minister takes the petition seriously and assures the people of this Province

that the level of health care that the children have been used to and the

parents have been used to continues, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support

my colleague for St. Mary's - The Capes' petition with concerns raised regarding

the Janeway Hospital, and I think rightly so. People have a reason to be

concerned. The Janeway Child Health Centre has served as a very significant

hospital in the lives of children in this Province. It has played a very

important role and provided some excellent care.

Now with the consolidation under the system, as of yet we

have not seen, and hopefully we will see things that will be positive and

something that I can support, but I would have to see what is going to happen.

We have not seen yet a particular plan as to what will happen when the Janeway

Hospital is moved to the site at the Health Sciences Centre.

Now the minister did say in this House a couple of weeks ago,

which caused some concern to me, that they would be sharing operating rooms in

the new facility. The minister made that statement on the third day after the

House opened. To be sharing operating rooms with adults and kids, young kids,

sometimes infants, it is a concern with critical care beds. When they come out

of an operating room we have critical care beds that will take care of these

people whether it is cardiac care or intensive care units. If they will be in a

separate area, a separate wing they will be moved to and the same nurse would be

attending on people, kids, that attend on adults. We have not been told that. We

have been generally given general indications but we have not been shown any

particular plan.

We were told at the beginning - initially they could not say

if there was going to be a new wing attached or it is going to be incorporated.

Then Mr. Tilley did say that there is going to be an annex or something adjacent

to it, he made reference and that seems to be the predominate thing since but

they have not come forth to show us how they are going to be able to take those

numbers of beds that are actively used and I do believe that it is in the

vicinity of sixty beds that are usually used approximately there on an ongoing

basis. I think they have the capacity of, I believe, of about 100 beds initially

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and fifty.

MR. SULLIVAN: One hundred and fifty but it has never been

any more then around sixty recently, to my knowledge, in the more recent past

anyway. I am wondering where they are going to be accommodated and how? The

minister said we will have something before this fall is out, before Christmas,

and I am looking forward to seeing what is going to happen.

We do know that there are only twenty-four operating rooms in

the city today and we do know that if the Janeway closes and the Grace closes we

are only going to have about fourteen left. Unless we are going to increase the

operating room space - and I know that you just cannot plan and have your

operations on a twenty-four hour basis, some are emergencies. They have to be

done when the need arises. We just cannot slate all the slate operations and

intensive care beds like we would do on other more elective type beds and

elective surgery. They can be scheduled a lot better. We have to have enough in

the system that is going to accommodate that.

Right now Sister Elizabeth Davis stated, and she stated back

on September 28, in The Evening Telegram , that there may well be a

shortage of operating room beds here in the city and made reference to critical

care beds in the city. There are forty-three adult critical care beds in the

city now and with the moving together of these facilities people want some

assurances that their health care is not going to be compromised.

Now Sister Elizabeth Davis yesterday spoke to the Board of

Trade, I heard in the media, that there are concerns with the system and there

is a crunch from a financial perspective and steps have to be taken but my

concern and I said it from day one at Holiday Inn and the minister was there

too, I said do not use this under the disguise of improved health care. If it is

a budgetary restraint and this Province cannot afford it and it is costly, come

up front and tell the people we cannot afford it. We cannot afford to be putting

those dollars in the health care, tell the truth to the people and tell them

what your plan is. Now we have been told it is under improved health, that I

have not seen. The minister has made reference to numerous statistics here, I

can tell you for the last number of years the Fraser Forum has put us seven out

of ten in the country, except this year. Mr. Tilley of the Health Science - and

I was interviewed the same day - acknowledged that these figures are very

misleading. They were showing waiting lists for cardiac surgery is only a matter

of a few months when doctors were telling me they have patients - cardiologists

- that there are 200. The waiting list is over a year, year-and-a-half.

I spoke to doctors in the last month or so who said the list

is not accurate. We have the longest waiting lists for ultrasound in the

country; Fraser Forum tells us that this year. We have the longest ones for

diagnostic services, most diagnostic services is the longest in the country, we

are last. The Fraser Forum, the recent edition, tells us those things. So we are

hearing one thing, the minister and the bureaucracy, the health care corporation

hired two new public relations people because we are misinterpreting what they

are saying in the public.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I would like to know - if I have put

out false information I would certainly like to know what it is. I was told by

people that there was ninety-five medically discharged people in hospitals there

and I can almost tell them what floors they are on and where they are, yes, I

will agree. Some people have been there so long that they are considered nursing

home people and they are calling them chronic care now. They are calling them

chronic care people, not acute care and that is the difference in the number, I

say to the minister, they are still tying up beds in acute care hospitals.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Maybe you discharged (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did. If you are medically discharged

and you pay your way they keep you there, if you are not you have to get out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Just a word or two to the petition that was presented by the

hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. First of all I want to commend the

hon. member for bringing forward the petitions that he has brought forward. He

has brought forward two or three now. I think it is healthy, I think it is a

good sign, and I think it is positive that people are expressing their views and

their concerns. I think it is good that people are asking questions with respect

to the redevelopment of the hospitals in the St. John's area, and I think it is

good that people are wanting to know what restructuring means in terms of the

future of the health care system.

It is the first sign, really, that people have an interest in

and that people are willing to participate in the discussion and in the debate

with respect to the issue. I commend the hon. members for bringing forward the

petitions and for asking the questions they are asking. The questions they are

asking are not dissimilar to the questions that others have asked from the time

we announced restructuring on June 29, and the questions that the petitions

raise are not different from the questions raised by the doctors at the Grace

who wrote the Health Care Corporation, and copied me on their letter with

respect to the future of health care. It gives us an opportunity in government

and throughout the system to again address the questions in the context of

trying to give factual information and to try and allay the fears of the people

of the community as to what is going on.

The move to restructure health care, the hon. Member for

Ferryland indicated, might be more about dollars and cents than it is about

health care. Let me be very direct and very honest with the hon. member, as I

have tried to be always, of course. It is about both improved health care, it is

about an improvement in the quality of the programs we deliver through health

care, and it is also about dollars and cents. We are in fiscally difficult times

and we have not cut for the sake of saving money, but when you can make

adjustments to a system to provide a better service and at the same time save or

maximize efficiencies fiscally then it is only appropriate that we do those

types of things.

Again, I refer to the question he raised and the answer I

gave last week, I believe it was, to another petition. We are not closing the

Janeway, we are relocating the Janeway. The Janeway represents to the people of

this Province a dedicated pediatric service. It does not, in the first instance,

represent a building. It is not about bricks and mortar; it is about a service

to children in terms of health care that we have provided for many years. That

is what we are relocating to the Health Sciences Centre, to be located in a more

user friendly atmosphere, to be provided in a more efficient manner, and to be

provided on a more cooperative basis with the other range of services that are

provided at the Health Sciences that now have to be accessed by the people at

the Janeway by having to go up there and come back on a continuous basis using

ambulance and other types of services to get some services that are not at both

sites.

What we will accomplish and what we will achieve at the

Health Sciences Centre with the relocation of the Janeway there is essentially

equivalent to what we have already achieved there when we moved the H. Bliss

Murphy Cancer Centre there, and for those who have had opportunity to go over

there and visit that centre they will readily agree. I have not heard one person

say anything but words of commendation and praise for the move of the cancer

clinic to the site over adjacent to, and contiguous with the Health Sciences

Centre.

That same principle will be applied to the move of the

Janeway services over there. There will be space provided that will be better

space, used more efficiently and more proficiently for the delivery of health

care to children, paediatrics who need that service. I am only too glad to be

able to again reinforce for the members of the House and the people of the

Province, hopefully, as they get to hear what we say here through the media, the

move of the Janeway as a service will be a positive step, it will be an enhanced

service. Doctors and nurses, as best I have heard and can judge, are almost

totally supportive of the move of the Janeway to the Health Sciences.

I heard from doctors at the Grace last week raising questions

about that move, but I have to say I have not heard that same type of

representation, to date at any rate. I don't know whether it will come, but I

have not heard those types of concerns raised by -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - the physicians at the Janeway.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I think they accept what they are doing

as the right and proper thing to do, and, with the cooperation of all Members of

the House and the people of the Province, we will achieve a better result in the

end.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we call the orders,

perhaps the House would want to note that the third of the Leaders, who is a

Scorpio in the House - the other two Leaders, my learned friend, the Member for

St. John's East and my learned friend, the Member for Humber East

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for

Ferryland, they are indeed learned - not blessed, but learned. They both are

Scorpios. Each of them celebrated a birthday recently, and I'm sure the House

would want me to note that the Premier celebrates his birthday today. And I

would say for the benefit of those who hope to take his seat, he is now a year

older than he was yesterday. They can read what they want into that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he call his mother?

MR. ROBERTS: I think the Premier's mother is dead, so I'm

not -

MR. TOBIN: The Premier's birthday today. How old is he,

`Ed'?

MR. ROBERTS: Old enough to know better, I would say.

MR. TOBIN: Is he older than you?

MR. ROBERTS: I believe he is fifty-eight, isn't he? He

made a reference that he is past beyond the Heinz stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: The number on the catsup bottle.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the Heinz stage, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I see. I thought you were talking

about the Heinz variety.

MR. ROBERTS: In any event, Your Honour, with that said,

that is a fitting introduction to the business of the House. Let me first of all

move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I notice the enthusiasm with which members

on both sides dealt with that motion, Mr. Speaker, and I thank them.

Would we first of all please, Sir, deal with Order No. 11

which is Bill No. 7. I believe `Byrne Primus,' my friend, the Member for St.

John's East Extern, was holding the floor at the time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He is finished.

MR. ROBERTS: I know he is finished, but does he - doesn't

want to speak in the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thought my hon. friend - had my hon.

friend concluded his remarks?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: He has every right to speak. If he has time

left we will gladly hear him. If he doesn't want to, I will close the debate,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: I adjourned debate to give you an

opportunity to get up.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend, then.

MR. SPEAKER: You are calling Bill No. 7.

If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now, he will

close the debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

In the Premier's absence, I will say a few words to conclude

the debate. For the benefit of those who are to come next, let me say that the

next order we will be dealing with is Order No. 20 on today's Order Paper, which

is Bill No. 27. My note is that my friend, the Member for Humber Valley had us

in his thrall when he adjourned the debate last Friday, if memory serves me

correctly.

Let me just make a couple of comments with respect to the

debate. I think we have had a vigorous and wide-ranging debate, and I thank all

the members on both sides who participated. I assure them that the Premier, as

the minister responsible, and his colleagues in the Ministry will accord to each

of the speeches made in the debate the weight and the merits that they carry

with them intrinsically.

The bill, itself, is an enabling bill. Strictly speaking, we

do not need such legislation, because it would be, I think, constitutionally and

legally proper for the government simply to repeal all Orders in Council if we

wanted to. As a matter of law, if the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has the

authority to make a regulation, then he or she has the authority to repeal it -

the same as if a minister has the authority to make, he or she may repeal. And

if the House has the authority to adopt a statute, then the House may amend or

repeal it.

We chose to take the route we are on because we wanted to

make -

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think we should call a quorum.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wants to

call a quorum, I suggest he should feel free to do so. All he will do, I suggest

to my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, is number one, make a fool

of himself today as he did yesterday, and number two, delay the work of the

House. But if he wants to call a quorum he has the right under the rules of the

House to do so.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're in trouble again.

MR. TOBIN: No, I'm not in trouble again, but I think it

is incumbent upon this government to keep a quorum in the House, Mr. Speaker.

And today, as yesterday, we have seven members in the House on the government

side.

AN HON. MEMBER: One here, one here!

MR. TOBIN: One here. Okay, we have eight, Mr. Speaker.

My House Leader doesn't want me to call a quorum, only for

that, I would, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I don't think the Government House Leader is

so boring that his caucus shouldn't listen to what he has to say.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend

for his assurance that I'm not sufficiently boring. Could I have that in writing

so I could use it at the next meeting of our own caucus?

Your Honour, the point I was making is this is an enabling

bill. We chose to take the route set out in this legislation because we wanted,

first of all, to make a statement, and secondly, to demonstrate in a conclusive

and determinative fashion that we are deadly serious about this process of

revising and consolidating this subordinate legislation.

The bill, itself, is only one of a three-part process. It is

the first of a three-stage process. Part one is the bill which, as the Premier

explained, will put a sunset clause into place, and I remind the House that we

will be dealing with that in Committee. We will need to extend the 31 December

date by a period of two or three months to enable the necessary work to be done,

because the whole process did slip somewhat behind, perhaps not unexpectedly and

certainly not as a result of any delay on the part of the Commissioner or the

men and the women who worked with him. I worked fairly closely with the process,

and I think that the Commissioner and the staff who worked with him did

extremely good work, and I think that we in this House and we in this Province

owe them a vote of thanks.

Secondly, the second stage will be the re-enactment of the

regulations that are being re-enacted. Now, members asked here today, and have

asked over the past two or three days in the course of debate, what were we

going to enact and what were we not going to re-enact? What I can say to members

is that there are lists prepared.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, it is in the Commissioner's report. My

hon. friend - has that been tabled? I will not ask how my hon. friend got the

report.

MR. HARRIS: I don't have (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, okay. Let me talk about the report, but

let me just come to it in my own way, if I may, I say to my learned friend, the

Member for St. John's East.

The Commissioner has prepared lists of the orders which, in

his advice, his recommendation, ought to be re-enacted, some with amendments,

some without, and those which, in his advice and on his recommendation, ought

not to be re-enacted. Now, the Commissioner is the Commissioner, and we treat

his reports extremely seriously and take his advice extremely seriously, but -

and it is an important but - the Cabinet, itself has the obligation, the

responsibility and the authority to enact or not to re-enact, as may be the

case, so we are dealing with those. We have not yet worked our way through. We

were contemplating tabling the entire report and then it was said, no, that is

hardly fair until the Cabinet have taken a decision. I would hope we will be in

a position shortly where we have finished. There are roughly 350 separate

reports, some of them dealing with far more than one regulation. We have dealt

with perhaps 320, if memory serves me well. We will be dealing with the

remainder very quickly. We shall then be tabling lists, and at that point, I

have no difficulty in laying out exactly what we have done and why. The second

stage, as I said, of the process, is the re-enactment of regulations.

The third stage is that this House will be asked to deal with

another bill which will do two things. In some cases, the Commissioner has

recommended changes in legislation as a result of what he has recommended in

connection with regulations. For example, we have a number of acts which specify

certain fees and certain forms. The Commissioner's recommendation, uniformly in

that case, has been that we take those sections out of the act and have a much

simpler and a much more uniform fee and form-setting process, and that is dealt

with in his report. So we will need to do that.

Secondly, the bill will address the fact that in a number of

cases we need to repeal statutes that, in the Commissionaire's judgement, are no

longer necessary, and if Cabinet accepts that judgement then we shall ask the

House to repeal those statutes.

Mr. Speaker, we will be doing that, and once the process is

completed, we will be able to do something that has never been done in this

Province before. We will be able to publish a consolidated regulations of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, there may not be meetings in Sheshatshiu or in

Mud Lake in my constituency tonight to pass resolutions to commend the

government for this, or to commend the House of Assembly for it, but anybody who

works -

MR. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for

Stephenville, I agree with him, there should be, because anybody who works with

the regulations - anybody - whether it is a lawyer or some business person

trying to work their way through the maze, or an official administering the

rules, or anybody else, cannot help but be all but staggered by the fact that

the regulations are difficult of access, to put it gently.

MR. HARRIS: No votes in Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: No votes in Justice, says my friend, the

Member for St. John's East. Well, I think he is wrong. Anyway, whether there are

or not we have an obligation to do what is right and we try to do that. Mr.

Speaker, the regulations are all but inaccessible now. There is an index. That

was a new development - about the late '70s, I think that came along. But still,

once you get the index, then you have to go hunting through the gazettes which

is where most of them are, and if there have been amendments, the most you have

are office copies of amendments and all office consolidations have on the front

the legend that says, `Office consolidation. Do not rely on this. Check with the

original enactments to be sure you have it right.' So, working with them as a

practical tool is a very difficult process. Regulations are an inescapable and

an important part of our life as a society here or elsewhere, so we think being

able to consolidate them and put them together in one publication will be a

considerable step forward.

I believe we are going to do them on a loose-leaf format. I

am having my gown tugged here. I am told we are not going to have them done in a

loose-leaf format. I have to say that my advice to Mr. Smallwood's biographer,

Richard Gwynn, was that he should publish his book in loose-leaf format because

there would be changes to come, and I give the same advice to the authorities

here. Also, I understand, we are going to be able to put these on the internet -

maybe not the internet, I may have that term wrong, but to make them available

electronically so that my learned friend, the Member for St. John's East, when

he is not being a full-time member of the House and is at his law office

downtown, he can plug in, if he is computer literate, as I am not, and he can

have the regulations there on his screen, and if we can only get around the

technology, he can print out the regulations he wants. We do have some copyright

issues. I think we can solve those, and we do have some issues about making sure

my learned friend pays his share of the freight. And no lawyer would begrudge

paying his or her share of the freight.

Mr. Speaker, that's where we are. We believe the bill is a

step forward and we have no hesitation in asking the House to adopt it. We

suggest it will be a considerable step forward if it is adopted so we commend it

on that basis. Let me conclude by simply saying that regulations are an

inescapable fact of life.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Does my friend, the Member for Grand Bank

have something to say?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I like your jacket.

MR. ROBERTS: I am glad my friend, the Member for Grand

Bank likes my jacket. If he wishes, he may come and touch the hem of my garment,

and good things may happen to him.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) goodwill -

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I have to tell my friend, the Member

for Burin - Placentia West, there is more goodwill here towards me than there is

towards him. I have to say that people will just not believe that I don't pay

him handsomely to feed me these straight lines that he does. The only person to

whom I can compare him is the former, and much lamented member for Mount Scio or

St. John's North, `savory' John Carter. If you would read in Hansard what John

Carter and I said back and forth to each other across this House, you would

think we were sworn blood enemies, and we were politically, but in no other

sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, maybe we heard the hon. gentleman from

Mount Scio think. That is a step up on some of my friends opposite now.

Your Honour, I am trying to conclude the debate, but I must

say it is difficult. It is difficult when I am being led astray. Now, Byrne

Primus is there saying, of course, I love it - why else would you be in the

House for twenty-one years? I know my friend will never get the chance to find

out. My friend, the Member for St. John's East Extern will never find out why

anybody would want to be in the House for twenty-two or twenty-three years. But,

of course I like it. Why else would you be here?

MR. TOBIN: I am serious now. What did you do with your

old suit?

MR. ROBERTS: What did I do with my old suit? My hon.

friend is wearing it. He is not going to pretend he bought that one he has on,

new, is he? If he got it at a goodwill centre, that is doing a disservice to the

goodwill centre. I say to my friends with the Irish - this is a Donegal tweed.

MR. SULLIVAN: I donated that.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the only thing the hon. gentleman,

the Member for Ferryland, ever donated to anybody, I say, if he donated this.

Checking out the hon. gentleman's background is nearly as much fun as checking

out his foreground.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) back in 19 -

MR. ROBERTS: I am extremely grateful for that and I hope

the hon. gentleman acknowledges that he got good value for his donation. I

appreciate that and I appreciate the hon. gentleman's continuing support today.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thank him for that.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I could say to my friend, the Member for

Ferryland, he could do me a favour by arguing against me.

Mr. Speaker, it really is difficult to stick to the point of

the second reading of "An Act Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of

Subordinate Legislation".

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. TOBIN: If you and `Loyola' got into an argument

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If the gentleman from Ferryland and I got

into an argument, it would be a case of the blind leading the blind. Now, think

that one through.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The Member for Ferryland, I think, is a

plausible admirer of yours.

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Minister of Health,

the Member for Ferryland keeps it well hidden most of the time.

These are three notes now; I am simply going to have to sit

down. These do not say, `Carry on'. This one says: Bill Matthews says he is

ready to cross the House; could he see you at 5:00 p.m. to talk about it?

Your Honour, let me try to conclude by saying that we must

have regulations in this Province; we simply must. The trick is to make them as

few as possible, as clear as possible, and as user-friendly as possible, and we

believe, and it is our request to the House, that the adoption of this bill will

enable us to move closer to that goal.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a

second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Revision And

Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation," read a second time, ordered referred

to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 7)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to

call Order 20; that is Bill No. 27, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal

Act And The

Summary Proceedings Act." My recollection is that the Member for

Humber Valley had the floor.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few minutes left to speak on this particular

piece of legislation. One of the things that was brought up today - I brought it

up the other day, and I think the minister nodded in agreement - about the waste

disposal sites around the Province, and the regulations and so on governing

waste disposal sites. I also mentioned the incinerator sites around the Province

and what is happening with municipalities, even where there is an incinerator

site, I say to the minister, when he is looking at the waste disposal act, or

whatever the problem is with waste disposal sites around the Province,

especially landfill sites I should say, really. But I think the whole thing is

going to have to be looked at, even the incinerator sites, because the

incinerator itself only burns the garbage, we will say, like anything that is

burnable, or that can be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Cindered.

MR. WOODFORD: Cindered and so on - what goes into it.

When you look around the areas outside those incinerator sites, it is just

terrible, to say the least. At least, in a landfill site what happens is that

there is usually a grubbing that takes place with regard to small trees and so

on around the area - that is grubbed off first - and then the landfill, the

garbage, old fridges, old stoves, everything under the sun is brought in there

and dumped, and then the fill is bulled in on it and so on and it is covered

over.

Now, what I am noticing, I was in and saw two incinerator

sites - it is rather funny that it happened since I think it was last Thursday

or Friday that I spoke on it, and I have been into two sites. One, I had to go

to myself, specifically on a personal matter, to bring out some garbage, and

another, I dropped in just to see if it was as bad. It is just terrible what is

happening outside the incinerator site itself. So I say to the minister that

when he is looking at the problems with regard to landfill sites around the

Province - and I notice there now it is a matter of cleanup and that is very

costly, especially what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

announced today, it is going to be worse still; it is going to add more cost to

municipalities - I say to him that is one of the things to look at as well,

towns and communities that have incinerator sites, but look at the surrounding

area, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, look at the whole thing, because I

think it is going to have to be addressed. It is getting worse and worse all the

time. What is happening, I say to the minister, is that municipalities are

putting out their tenders - I know of one, for sure - putting out their tenders

and the contractor is bidding lower and lower and lower all the time. As long as

the municipality gets the tender lower, good for them, because they are saving a

few dollars, but what is happening with the contractor is, he takes the contract

and goes in and puts whatever has to be burned, but the stuff on the outside is

left, it is there, it is not covered. It is left because the least time they

have to spend bringing in the tractor, bulldozer or anything to cover it, the

less money they spend. So I can see what is happening.

Furthermore, I mentioned last week about garbage trucks. Many

communities are using just pick-ups with a wooden rack on the back, and it is

terrible. From the time they leave Deer Lake, for instance, until they get up to

the incinerator site, it is terrible what is on the sides of the roads. So I

think that is a matter of being policed, the RCMP - I don't know, in this area,

the RNC. Maybe there isn't, but I think there are rules and regulations

pertaining to an uncovered load or something like that to make sure the garbage

is protected - or a net. I think they are supposed to have a net over it,

really. So that is another real problem.

I remember a couple of years ago asking Social Services, in

one of their community development projects, to clean up between Deer Lake and

Cormack - an excellent job, perfect, one of the best things that was ever done -

because that is the gateway to Gros Morne, to L'Anse aux Meadows, to Red Bay, to

the Northern Peninsula. It is terrible when you have to go through that 5

kilometre

section where there is garbage coming from the backs of trucks and so

on and private individuals bringing stuff up to the dump. So that is another

area that should be addressed.

One other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to say, and I

say to the minister - I said it on Friday and I say it again:

Section II

says:`for the purpose of subsection (1) an offense shall not be considered a

second or subsequent offense unless it is committed within one year of the date

of the last previous conviction.' I say to the minister that possibly in

Committee or so on, I don't know whether I will make an amendment or someone

else will, or what, but I would like the minister to take that under

consideration and say that, `for the purpose of subsection (1) an offense shall

be considered - shall be considered - a second or subsequent offense if

committed within one year of the date of the last previous conviction.' That

then, will mean that if someone is caught today and they are caught again

tomorrow and they are caught next week or next month they should get the maximum

fine. There should be no such thing as waiting for a full year before they are

nailed with a second offense because of the increase in the amount of fine that

they are charged. I think it is $25 to $100 or something? Yes, $25 to $100 in

the case of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: It is thirty days?

MR. SULLIVAN: A second offense within thirty days, but

after a year, it is the first offense again.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, it goes back - but if you are caught

twice within that one year you are only getting the same fine, that first

twenty-five dollar fine. An offense shall not be considered a second or a

subsequent offense unless it is committed within one year of the date.

MR. SULLIVAN: Second offense.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but as long as it is a second offense.

MR. SULLIVAN: After a year it goes back to a first

offense.

MR. WOODFORD: Then it goes back to one, something like -

but I agree with the - yes, something like the .05 or whatever.

Anyway, I say to the minister, anything that has to do with

the clean up of the environment or the enhancement of the environment is a good

piece of legislation, but anything we can add to it - I think, anybody who is

caught doing anything like that today with regard to garbage trucked in all over

the place, bringing it on the sides of roads, in our woods roads, just throwing

it anywhere, Mr. Speaker, should be penalized to the full extent of the law. I

say to the minister that probably the $25 or the $100 is probably not enough for

them, they should be nailed further. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words today on Bill

27, "An Act to Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act And The

Summary Proceedings

Act."

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this act is to include penalties

with respect to littering within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

first penalty for littering will be twenty-five dollars for the first offence

and $100 for the second offence.

I believe that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, some

people I suppose, I mean, there is a tendency to litter. The Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation was on the radio awhile back saying about people

being irresponsible and littering and they brought in a - the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation, and I think the Department of the

Environment, what was it - Adopt a Highway in their plan.

I believe these regulations are good steps, this amendment.

The public of this Province need to be informed of these new regulations and

these new penalties. We all know that people shouldn't litter but they certainly

have a right to know now what is in store for these people. The question with

respect to these regulations too, Mr. Speaker, of course, is then, who will be

responsible for enforcing the regulations? Will members of the general public

themselves be required or asked to help enforce these regulations by phoning in

and telling on people with respect to the wildlife now? We have a 1-800 number,

what about the cost involved with respect to enforcing these regulations if they

are enforced or if they will be enforced? Can these regulations be enforced?

Will these penalties be put in place or will they be implemented?

We had regulations come in last year, the ATV regulations,

and we made an argument to the government with respect to these regulations,

they could not be enforced as they were not logical and they didn't have the

staff to enforce these regulations and what we see today, Mr. Speaker, is

exactly just that happening. With respect to these penalties, we have jail terms

if people cannot pay their fines and we have situations today where the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is now cutting the Municipal Operating

Grants to the municipalities in this Province so we can see what hardships the

people of this Province are incurring because of this government, so now, we

have a ten-dollar fine or a $100-fine or whatever the case may be and if they

cannot pay these fines, these people will be jailed.

Now, with the unemployment rate in this Province and the

difficulties that the people in this Province find themselves in, I would have

to question the stiffness of that penalty. Another thing, we often see children

going to the local convenient stores buying candy bars and a bottle of pop and

what have you, and oftentimes will forget themselves and throw it in the ditch

on the side of the road. Now, if we have an RNC officer or an RCMP officer or

maybe an employee of a municipality, will the children be stopped, will they be

asked to pick up the garbage? Will the parents now be fined for children

littering?

I know that littering is a very serious problem in this

Province. We see highways -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, if he were paying attention he wouldn't have to ask that

question, he should know and if he doesn't have enough responsibility within

himself to follow the proceedings of the House of Assembly, he shouldn't be

here, so he should go take a break for himself I would say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the littering and the seriousness

of littering within this Province, we have, as I said, children leaving the

convenient stores in their communities and throwing candy wrappers or bar

wrappers or pop drink bottles on the side of the road and an RNC officer or an

RCMP officer or someone comes along and asks these children to pick it up, will

the parents have to pay these fines? Will the children be fined? I don't know

but these are some of the questions maybe, the Minister of Environment will be

able to answer in due course.

I am not a hunter, Mr. Speaker, but I am a fisherman, I like

trouting and salmon fishing and I like to go in the country and there is a lot

of littering in the countryside, but I always make it a practice that if we

drive to where we are going or if we walk to where we are going, we take the

garbage out, any garbage that we have. We burn what we can and it takes a

concentrated effort to get the garbage out but this has to be done.

Speaking of garbage, and this party, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Progressive Conservative Party, and the party on this side of the

House, the Official Opposition, is doing its best at this point in time to

remove the garbage from that side of the House the next time after the next

provincial election. I say that to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. With respect to garbage too, we hear a lot of verbal garbage in

this House of Assembly, in particular verbal garbage from the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation who loves to interrupt. He doesn't know what he is

talking about most of the time.

I believe what we should be doing in this Province is putting

in a proper education program with respect to educating people on the negative

impact of littering within the Province. A few years ago before this government

was elected it talked about bringing in legislation with respect to soft drink

bottles, returnable bottles. I think it may have been a part of their platform

to get re-elected, but soon after they were elected they dropped that argument

or that belief and went with an anti-litter campaign which is being paid for by

the soft drink association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I don't believe that this program is working. It is not

working by any stretch of the imagination. I've travelled the Trans-Canada

Highway and a lot of the highways in this Province. They have cleanups each year

and you can go back the following year and again there is litter, there are soft

drink bottle on the side of the road. Soft drinks bottles are only part of the

problem. One thing you don't see on the side of the road are beer bottles,

because they are returnable and people can make a few cents and get a few

dollars when they return their bottles. Maybe it is something that this

government should reconsider with respect to the anti-litter campaign and show

some - if it is working, let's show the proof.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation probably dropped a few in his day on the side of the road,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: No sir. I have more respect for the Province

than that.

MR. J. BYRNE: You do? I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker,

that he does have more respect for the Province. A lot more people should have

it also.

The Premier the other day - I was speaking on education until

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation so rudely interrupted, as he

normally does - brought in Bill No. 7 with respect to consolidating regulations

within this Province and reducing the regulations. Which is a good idea. I think

most everybody who stood up here in this House supported that bill, with respect

to the duplication. The thing is this: Will these regulations that we are

talking about now, these penalties, be enforced? If they are not enforceable,

there is no point in having them on the books.

A few years ago - I think since the new Minister of

Environment took his place, he brought in regulations with respect to the

importation of garbage into this Province. We all know the history of the

importation of garbage, and the opposition that the general public has with

respect to the importation of garbage in this Province. If you look at those

regulations, there was nothing in place before, so basically it was at the

discretion of the government to allow the importation of garbage into this

Province. But what the government has done now is put regulations in place that

if these regulations are met the argument then when they allow the importation

of garbage will be: They met our regulations and there is nothing we could do

about it. But these are the regulations that this government brought in.

Regulations which will permit the importation of garbage, not disallow the

importation of garbage.

Anyway, I will tell you a little story now about littering in

this Province. Down in Logy Bay there is a road we call Red Cliff Road which

leads up to the old Red Cliff military site which was put there during the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know I didn't see it. Anyway, there

is a road down there, Red Cliff Road, which leads up to the old military site.

For years that area, the Red Cliff Road, was used as a dump site. When I was

mayor we went down there and we cleaned up that road, both sides, 50 feet, 60

feet on either side of the road, and we made a major cleanup and brought all the

garbage out to Robin Hood Bay.

People used to come down from the area - mostly around St.

John's - and go down to Robin Hood Bay on a Saturday - Robin Hood Bay closes at

12:00. If they were three or four minutes late the gate would be closed, and

then they would find an alternate site to do their dumping.

We on occasion actually got the garbage, went through the

garbage itself, got names off envelopes and that of people who owned the

garbage, who produced the garbage, and brought those names to the RNC and asked

the RNC to investigate and put fines in place, or do whatever they could to stop

this dumping of garbage on the Red Cliff Road. Because of the regulations that

were in place I don't know of anybody that ever got fined. Maybe if these fines

work it will be a great move with respect to stopping the littering of garbage

on Red Cliff Road or any roads in and around St. John's, or on any byroad within

the Province. I think if this legislation gives a bit of clout to the RNC or to

the police officers or the police forces within the Province to stop the

littering within the Province, of course it has to be a good thing.

A couple of things here with respect to the bill itself, Bill

No. 27, the clauses themselves, Mr. Speaker. It says in

section 23.1(1)(a):

"where the offence is a first offence, to a fine of $25 and in default of

payment to imprisonment for 2 days...." I have to question the wisdom of that.

We have a $25 fine. If someone doesn't pay it he or she ends up going in jail

for two nights. What would the cost of that be to the taxpayers of this

Province, two days in jail?

Section 23.1(1)(

b) says: "where the offence is a

second or subsequent offence, to a fine of $100 and in default of payment to

imprisonment for 7 days."

I have a note here, cost to the taxpayer again. They pay a

fine of $100. If they don't pay that fine, or if they can't pay that fine, and

that is going to be the case, and I know it is there as a deterrent to stop

people from littering, but if you get some person who forgets himself -

discretion of course has to be a factor here. But if you have a person who is

fined $100 who is unemployed - the rate of unemployment in this Province now is

22 per cent, maybe more like 50 per cent - and so, they go to jail for seven

days. Can you imagine the cost to the taxpayer for putting someone in jail for

seven days for throwing a bar wrapper or pop bottle on the side of the road?

MR. EFFORD: If they don't litter they don't have to pay

the fine, and (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, we aren't all God-like like yourself, maybe, and we

all can't walk on water, and we aren't all perfect. So are you saying if you pay

$100 now, and if you don't pay $100 you should get seven days in jail? Seven

days? Can you realize the cost to the taxpayer? The government here is talking

all the time about cutbacks, 22 per cent now of the cuts to the municipal

operating grants next year, on top of a 60 per cent cut to the municipal

operating grants because the government doesn't have money to pay for the

services, and we are going to put somebody in jail for seven days for throwing a

pop bottle on the side of the road? Come on, boy. Get your priorities straight.

That is what I would say.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon? What was that? Could you repeat

that, please?

MR. EFFORD: There are places in the world they would chop

off your fingers for less then that.

MR. J. BYRNE: There are places in the world where they

would chop off your tongue for some of the things you say.

Also, Mr. Speaker, another point with respect to

section

23.1(4): "The late penalty referred to in subsection (3) shall be (

a) in case of

a fine of $25, $10;" - so if you don't pay your fine, you can be re-fined

another $10 on top of that - "and (

b) in the case of a fine of $100, $25."

MR. EFFORD: What's wrong with that?

MR. J. BYRNE: Pay attention and you might find out.

MR. EFFORD: Tell me, what's wrong with it.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm getting to it. Be patient, I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Don't blow a fuse over there.

Watch your blood pressure. We are saying -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) criticizing.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm not criticizing; I'm trying to give

some constructive criticism here. I don't criticize for the sake of criticizing,

like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I'm not that type of an

individual. So if you pay attention you might know and learn something.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my time is getting short. I have other

things to do. You are saying that if you don't pay your $25 fine then there is a

$10 fine on top of that, and in the case of a fine of $100 it is $25. There are

all kinds of factors to consider, but instead of putting somebody in jail for

seven days if he or she doesn't pay a $100 fine, maybe they should double the

fine, or maybe allow the person to pay off the fine in instalments, whatever the

case may be.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I'm not. I will say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, there are people in this Province who do not

know where their next loaf of bread is coming from or their next pound of

butter, I will say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. There

is not everybody in this Province who are getting the salaries that we are

getting. They are not getting $100,000 - $120,000 a year. That $100 means a lot

to them. There are people in this Province who are not getting $100 a week. So

that is a major factor. They are the people who are going to get nailed and

crucified.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs is now saying that the people in this Province, the ordinary

Joe in this Province who is probably on social services or who is getting the

minimum wage, who is maybe getting $120 a week should be crucified and should be

nailed to the cross if they throw a pop bottle or a candy bar wrapper on the

side of the road. You got to look at it, Mr. Speaker, from the seriousness of

the offense. There are people in this Province and in this country that are

doing much more serious offenses then throwing a piece of paper on the road and

not getting seven days in jail for it, Mr. Speaker. I say that to the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I said pretty well what I wanted to say

about this bill. Indeed, I would have to agree, if the bill does prevent

littering in the Province it would have to be considered a good bill, I would

imagine, but I would have to say the seriousness of the offense would have to be

a major consideration when we are talking about jail terms and jail time within

the Province, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like a few

words as well on this Bill 27, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act

And The

Summary Proceedings Act."

I do believe it was the Government House Leader some days ago

in some questioning back and forth across this House with regard to this bill,

that it was indicated that this particular amendment to the waste disposal act

was meant to replace a basically unenforceable part of the highway traffic act,

in that the littering law attached to the highway traffic act had to do with the

disposal of materials on a road surface that would cause injury to tires or

other moving parts of a vehicle and thereby, presumably lead to car accidents

and that sort of thing.

Mr. Speaker, the thrust of my remarks are simply this, that

yes this is an improvement if the changes are more enforceable and have a more

general nature. However, Mr. Speaker, the issue I think, is that the government

has avoided - deliberately as a matter of government policy - dealing head on

with one of the major causes of litter in our Province and that has to do with

soft drink containers. The government, as a matter of electoral policy,

indicated it was going to bring in a returnable bottle policy some time ago but

when it came to power and under the influence of a strong lobby from the soft

drink bottling industry it agreed to back down on requiring returnable bottles

and brought in, basically under the financing of the soft drink industry, a

public education program.

Mr. Speaker, a public education program with regard to

littering in general is a commendable move, one that the government and/or many

parts of our local industry should be supporting. I see ads on the TV and they

are all well and good as far as they go. Public education with the proper

mixture, a balance with enforcement, is a part of the anti-littering campaign

but, Mr. Speaker, what this government has failed to do is take advantage of the

incentives built in in the returnable bottle policy. People who check the sides

of the roads find there are very few beer bottles laying around for any

considerable length of time because there is money to be had in collecting them.

I think it is in the order of five cents a bottle and a lot of young people and

even older people have taken advantage of the refund deposit to earn

considerable extra money from the collection of bottles thrown loosely by the

side of the road.

Mr. Speaker, when I was a boy I spent considerable time in

the Boy Scouts and one of our major fund-raising efforts every year was a bottle

drive. Now, Mr. Speaker, as is obvious from the vote in the provincial education

referendum, I come from a part of the Province loosely known in the media as the

Bible belt. The Scout troop of which I was a member, of which I was a patrol

leader, was sponsored by my local church, the United Church in Springdale. That

particular church would have no truck or trade with the Scout troop collecting

beer bottles either from the side of the road or from people's homes or

whatever. We raised considerable sums of money over a number of years just based

on the soft drink trade alone. Those of us at the time were, I guess, chafing at

the bit or somewhat resentful that the adults in charge of us would not let us

get at the more lucrative beer bottle supply both on the side of the road and in

people's basements. Many times when we went knocking on the doors we asked for

soft-drink bottles. Sometimes there were some, sometimes there were none, but

quite often we were offered beer bottles and had to decline because the moral

code that dictated the running of our troop at the time did not allow us to

collect beer bottles, but even with the more limited supply of soft-drink

bottles we raised good money in those years, back when soft-drinks and such

things sold for a lot less than they do today.

Certain places in Canada, Prince Edward Island for instance,

has made it a policy that there be a five cent fee tacked on to all soft drink

products and that the bottles be returnable. Even if you had a can situation

where the bringing in of a can would give you a so many cent deposit, rather

than bringing in cans by the kilo or whatever, so that there would be a tangible

reward for the collection of soft-drink bottles or soft-drink cans even, as is

the case with beer bottles.

This government had a chance to bring in a law like this to

help clean up the environment of Newfoundland and Labrador, but this government,

like it has on so many other things, came under undue influence by a lobby

effort in the Province. This government sold out in this particular case, as it

has in many other cases, to vested interest to certain big business interest. We

have seen it year after year since they have come to power. Certain people who

trade heavily in the stock markets almost got this government to stampede

through this House a bill to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro against the

wishes of the vast majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A very

small segment of the population, generally speaking a well-monied segment, were

in favour of that because they knew they could do well either in trading stocks

relating to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or by just owning stocks, getting a

guaranteed rate of return because it was a regulated public utility. That is the

sort of thing that this government has been up to. People who have influence,

people who have money have undue influence on this government.

We saw an instance here a few days ago in this House where a

Cabinet minister was severely reprimanded. He got himself a lovely cartoon and

an absolutely savage editorial in yesterday's Evening Telegram all

because of the notion that influence can be tied to money.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a good measure in this

bill, but the key measure, the measure that this government campaigned on, it

backed off on, it chickened out on, it sold out on, and I say simply it is not

good enough. We have other provinces in Canada where they have had the nerve or

they have seen the priority. I know, for instance, Prince Edward Island makes a

good chunk of its living from the tourism industry, and it has good, strict laws

regarding littering. It also has a returnable bottles policy, and you will not

find much garbage or litter or soft-drink cans lying around the roads of Prince

Edward Island. They know what side their bread is buttered on. In this case it

is not the side of the bread of the Province that is buttered on; it is the side

of the bread of the Liberal Party where the butter went, and the minister of

heckling can leave all he wants.

Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid of the Minister of Works,

Services and Intimidation, and most members on this side would do well to take a

note of that. If you stand up to that bully - and the way it is with many

bullies on the other side - if you stand up to them and shout them down there is

not a word in their chops and they have to leave this Chamber with their tail

between their legs.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) $100,000 in severance pay, I

would not have (inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Eagle River

is back to his usual chatter about my severance from a former administration and

so on. I do not apologize for taking what was my due, given my rank, et cetera,

at the time, and my years of service. If the Member for Eagle River is concerned

about that, he can make sure that the policy with regard to people that this

government is severing is adjusted according to his particular philosophy and

views. He cannot undo the past, but let him put his money where his mouth is, or

his lack of money where his mouth is, when it comes to the thousands that this

government is going to sever, and let him answer then to the people being laid

off in their thousands with regard to whether or not they have severance or

whatever, M. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this particular bill is good as far

as it goes but it's like many things on the part of this government, it is

essentially smoke and mirrors, it is a public relations exercise and we all know

how good this government is at public relations. When I worked for the previous

administration, Mr. Speaker, in this Assembly, when the Liberal Party was on

this side in Opposition, there was a constant chant on a daily basis with regard

to Cabinet ministers each having a junior press aide. A press aide who was

junior to the minister's executive assistant. It was a scandal, it was a

horrible waste of money, public relations; even pictures of ministers in the

paper with regard to public service messages, all that sort of stuff were

condemned by Premier Wells and the Liberal Party when they were in Opposition,

as an absolute, total waste of public funds.

As I say, this bill to some extent is a public relations

exercise, brought forward by a government that has spent a fortune, spent

literally millions in public relations. If you listened to what they said when

they were in Opposition versus what they do when they are in government, you

wouldn't know they were the same party, you wouldn't know they are the same

government and sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador will wake up to the fact that what you see is not what you get and

heaven help you with what you get.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to have a few comments

relative to Bill 27. Many of the speakers have been talking about the commitment

of the Province and the commitment of our communities to recycling programs to

reducing the amount of waste. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is very

good, it puts forward certain penalties and consequences for those people who

deposit litter and waste material and of course it provides for, as I said,

certain sanctions. However, Mr. Speaker, the real commitment of the government

should be in the form of preventing litter, it should be a prevention of the

litter and that's where we would have some real, positive impact.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from a $200,000-study done

by ADI Limited, A Newplan Consultants Limited on Waste Management Alternatives

For The St. John's Urban Region and, Mr. Speaker, this study is very up-to-date,

completed in the last year or so and this particular study says to the

government that we should have strategies adopted for the reduction of waste and

should fall into several general categories.

Mr. Speaker, the St. John's urban region has always wanted to

have an aggressive program of reducing litter, therefore the St. John's urban

region committed itself to this particular study which was funded by the

municipalities in conjunction with the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs and it included the major communities in the greater St. John's area

including Conception Bay South, Mount Pearl, St. John's, Holyrood, Petty

Harbour, Maddox Cove, Pouch Cove and all the communities in between.

Mr. Speaker, what this study says and it was done in a rather

comprehensive manner and I will just quote for a few minutes from some of the

comments from this report. It says: the whole region, therefore the whole

Province should be working towards greater regional and provincial co-operation

in waste management. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister and the ministry,

that we can do a lot in terms of getting rid of some of the litter and we don't

have to spend great numbers of dollars to achieve it, therefore, in that

respect, this kind of initiative here is a positive initiative.

I worry about the fact that we do not see a great commitment

towards education. Someone, earlier, I think it was the Member for St. John's

East, spoke about trying to make people more litter-conscious. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I can give you an example of what happened in a school system, in a

junior high school. We put in various programs of waste recycling and I have to

say to you that, for the most part, the teenagers were very, very, committed to

it, and I will just illustrate for you what happened.

We had bins put in our school where you had the soft drink

containers put into one receptacle and you had paper waste put into another.

Unfortunately, when the containers got filled, our greatest difficulty was

finding someone to come and pick them up. The teenagers today have a commitment

towards litter reduction. The teenagers are committed to environmental issues;

however, I have to say that very often, that kind of commitment is not always

shared by their parents. In fact, teenagers, for the most part, are more

committed to litter reduction than are their parents and some of the twenty-five

to thirty-year-olds. In many ways, when it comes to litter reduction, we have to

let the children lead us, and if we let the children lead us, they will tell you

- even Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, they will tell you that they have been

educated towards litter reduction, but when it comes to finding a place to put

these things, very often they don't get the kind of co-operation they should

from their seniors, their parents, from their school systems, or from their

community at large. Mr. Speaker, we should be working towards a proper waste

management plan and in this report that was prepared for the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs on waste management alternatives, these issues

are brought out in that report.

Other things that got mentioned here - it says do something

about the illegal dumping. Now, all of us have driven on some of our highways,

the highway going to Cape Spear, or the highway up to our favourite places where

we go berry picking, hunting, or whatever, depending on what your sports are,

and we all know what it is like to drive up a roadway and to see along that

roadway many examples of people choosing just to dump their garbage. We have to

try to do something about illegal dumping which, of course, is again a problem

that perplexes many municipalities.

For example, I can tell you that a major, major issue in

municipalities is cleaning up from people who simply dump their waste, leave it

at the curb, or for that matter, you can see it in some of our urban areas, if

the garbage truck comes too early, or whatever, you can see litter all over the

streets. Very gradually, we find that people are taking more care and they are

willing to take more responsibility for keeping their environment clean and have

commitment to their neighbourhood and commitment to their community.

The report also mentioned banning the sale of non-recyclable

or non-reusable products. That has been mentioned by my colleague here and by

most speakers from this side of the House. We know that the real way to control

litter and to have a waste management program is if we would do something about

encouraging recycling. We should be doing that at the industrial level. For

example, we should be telling our paper mills that we would give them incentives

if they would be able to use some of the paper and recycle the paper waste.

People, who make oils, have waste oils, should be encouraged to recycle them. We

are doing some things about that but not quite enough to have the kind of impact

that we would like to have.

It says here: Ban the use of problem products. It says:

Plastic six-pack rings. We know the plastic rings that went around some of the

soft drink containers and some of the other beverage containers were very

dangerous to wildlife. For the most part, I don't see them used very much now,

but that was a major problem and I'm glad that the industry realized it and have

done something about it. Again, we should be watching the kinds of products that

we put in our landfill sites because, again, we have to look after the other

creatures that share our environment, including the gulls and animals.

Mr. Speaker, it says that we should require newspapers be

made from recycled paper fibres. This, again, would help to reduce the amount of

litter. All that we are saying here, whether it is reusable bottles for pop, or

whether it is newspapers that can be recycled or other products, the list goes

on and on, if we have that kind of commitment, then we will reduce the litter.

This amendment here is, of course, to draw sanctions. The

real solution is when we don't need those sanctions, when we have people who are

going to take on some responsibility for their actions, and that responsibility

would mean that they: (

a) wouldn't buy certain products; (

b) they would only buy

those, for example, that could be recycled, or they would give a commitment to

take their garbage with them and to deposit it in the proper disposal area.

Some members here have made comments about the financial

sanctions that are here. I can only say to the members that if we are going to

bring in sanctions, then this piece of legislation is not worth the paper it is

printed on. In fact, this piece of legislation would be in itself a piece of

litter if we are not going to do anything about enforcing the law. Therefore, if

we are not going to do something about it, we