December

11, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 83

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

Minister of Health. The minister provided information in the House yesterday

that in light of the mini-Budget and the cuts demanded on November 12, the

Health Department and institutions around the Province are being asked to cut

some $11 million from the budget for the remaining three months of the fiscal

year, some $4.8 million of that due to expenditures beyond what was budgeted

back in March.

Now $11 million is an enormous amount of money to cut from

the budget for a three month period. Will the minister explain how the

government is going to be able - and I use the minister's words: to get from MCP

something like $3.4 million over a three month period? That's an enormous amount

of money, so could the minister explain what's going on there and how are these

savings going to come about? Has something been done to the cap of MCP that

we're not aware of?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how to answer the

hon. member. All he seems to be doing is raising fears in people that we can't

do this and can't do that. Let me assure the hon. member that there'll be nobody

suffering in any way, shape or form for anything that we do with MCP.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate what the

minister is saying, that nobody is going to suffer. I'm simply asking him to

explain where these cuts are coming from. He never answered the question. I want

to ask him again. He said that $3.4 million is going to be cut from MCP over a

three month period and they're going to realise savings over that three month

period of $3.4 million. Will he explain where that $3.4 million is going to come

from? It's an enormous amount of money, as I said. Has something been done to

the cap of MCP that we're not aware of? Will he explain it to us, please?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what I can do. I

got into this business yesterday of explaining about the weights of chicken. I

suppose I can try to get into some analogy about it like that. Basically,

there's been savings in the MCP budget of approximately $3.4 million during the

year. That's basically all we're saying.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I might as well leave it. I'm not

going to get an answer from the minister on that. Let me move along to nursing

staff reductions by the government since 1989. It's resulted in unbearable

workload and severe injury to nurses who have to do the work of two now as the

result of these cutbacks. The Hospital and Nursing Home Association made it

clear in January that the quality of nursing care is stated to have been

negatively affected by reduced staffing, increased workloads and increased

demand for access to fewer beds, I believe is what they said. Now, can the

minister promise Newfoundlanders that no nursing positions will be lost or left

unfilled as a result of the mini-Budget or the measures announced on November

12th.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sky is not going

to fall, Mr. Speaker. No matter what they do opposite, we are not going to let

the sky fall. I am not going to let the sky fall, none of us are going to let

the sky fall and I know you want the sky to fall but it is not going to fall.

Let me tell you this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: I appreciate the dangers of things high but

there will be no - any reductions in staff that are contemplated will be

non-filling positions and as the member quite rightly inferred, you cannot just

leave nurses off a ward, if a nurse quits you have to replace that nurse. So

there will be no problems with replacing nurses and things of that nature. Any

staff that may not be replaced will be non-essential staff and that will not be

nursing staff. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: So, the minister has said and he stated

clearly that no nursing positions are going to be lost and the positions that

have been unfilled will now be filled. The minister said yesterday that part of

the $3.8 million cut to hospitals and nursing homes would be achieved by reduced

vacation relief and overtime, decreased replacement for sick leave relief,

compassionate leave and statutory holidays unless absolutely necessary, now is

that not just another way of saying that from time to time the number of medical

personnel on duty will now be allowed to fall below standard. Does it not mean

that while some staff members are absent for one reason or another, perhaps

because they were injured trying to do the work of two, that there will be fewer

staff left on the job to carry out the remaining duties?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Education.

In 1991, school boards received $82.3 million in operating

grants, equalization payments and from their own school tax source. In the 1992

Budget, these same three areas were slated to receive $84.5 million. With the

minister admitting both inside and outside the House that $11 million on

equalization will not be given this year, which reduces the amount down to $73.5

million resulting in a net loss of $8.8 million to school boards this year, will

the minister be straightforward and admit that boards will actually receive less

money this year than last year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, even as I speak, at this very

moment, thanks to modern technology, every superintendent in this Province is

engaged in a conference call with the Department of Education. Even as I speak,

Mr. Speaker, at this very instant. You know, when you think about modern

technology it is really amazing what you can do. All school boards are being

told - and you know what the good news is being told, Mr. Speaker? There is not

a single school board in this Province receiving less money than it received

last year. Is not that something?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: As a matter of fact, not a single board is

receiving less than 8 per cent more than they received last year. Now the

Opposition can try to twist figures and do what they like, they can be as

disappointed as they like, they can regret the fact that they made a mess of

government and education and health and everything else, all these things that

happened, but the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that even as we speak,

boards are being told they have an increase.

MR. ROBERTS: 8 per cent? That is more than Len Simms has

got for him.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad this modern technology was not available for

the past several years or for the last two weeks when the minister was

indicating and when the Budget was produced showing $84.5 million, the minister

stating as late as Monday, $11 million less, and the deputy minister, on

December 1, stated that 1 per cent and 3 per cent cutbacks in salary and

operating budgets would be deducted from school board grants, is there more to

come on top of this, and I ask the minister, is this $1.5 million in addition to

the $11 million in equalization that is already gouged from the impoverished

boards?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I explained, all the boards

are receiving more than they received last year. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, the lowest amount that any board is receiving is 8 per cent more than

it received last year. Now that is exactly the number that the hon. Leader of

the Opposition is in the polls - 8 per cent of the polls. So if he is having a

difficult time remembering all those figures, and all those millions of dollars

that we are putting into education, let him relate the figure eight to the same

place that his leader is in the polls today and he will remember that school

boards are getting an 8 per cent increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

question for the Premier.

Last August, six months after the present Minister of Justice

entered the Cabinet, the board of directors of Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador decided to terminate the patronage contract the Premier had previously

authorized to Halley, Hunt for legal work. At the time, the ENL board was

concerned about a conflict of interest involving the Justice Minister, former

senior partner of the firm. I ask the Premier: Was the conflict situation which

concerned the board the financial interest which the Minister of Justice last

Thursday admitted that he still holds in the law firm? Was that the concern the

board had? Was that the conflict, and that was what they were concerned about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the concern was that the

wife of the Minister of Justice is a member of the law firm and under

Section 3,

I believe it is, of the conflict of interest regulations, a government cannot

award a contract to a firm in which either a minister or a minister's spouse has

an interest.

Mr. Speaker, the concern was that even though the contract

had been awarded before the minister became a minister, the concern was that in

terms of doing legal work somebody had expressed the opinion that each new piece

of work could be interpreted to be a separate contract, so there was a potential

there for a conflict of interest. So the decision was that it would have to be

ended by the end of September, it was thought to be a reasonable time.

When the government developed and put in place its new policy

of inviting proposals for the supply of all legal services to government, then

it did not seem at all logical or sensible to terminate it as at the end of

September - put in place a totally new and different one for a three month

period and then perhaps have somebody different again after the end of December.

So what was done, it will all come to an end as at the end of December.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems like the Premier is saying that a conflict of

interest for three months is acceptable, but it is far more than three months, I

say to the Premier, and yesterday in his dealings with the press he was not

totally open and honest with them.

He announced the minister was joining the Cabinet last

November and he actually joined in February. Let us put aside the issue of the

Minister of Justice's spouse. Let us forget about that issue. The Minister told

the Premier about his financial interest in Halley Hunt before he joined the

Cabinet in February, sometime between November and February. That is a long time

ago. With that knowledge, the question is, Why did the Premier intervene to

overturn the decision of the ENL board and allow the contract to remain with

Halley Hunt, a very lucrative patronage contract that was not awarded, it was

not tendered, it was given by this Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if that were the only

problem, the fact that the remaining partners of Halley Hunt are paying a debt

that is owing as a result of the termination of the relationship, then it could

continue beyond December. If the spousal reason were not there it could continue

beyond December because that is not a conflict. Now, if people want to portray

it as such, I don't mind going to the people of this Province and saying, that

is not a conflict, it is an acceptable way to operate. I have no quarrel with

that. Now, I don't want to pretend it is any kind of a conflict because there is

not a conflict. It is a perfectly normal responsible way to react. Now, if there

were not this spousal problem and the possibility that each new piece of legal

work could be interpreted to be a new contract, and that as the potential

problem, the problem would not have been there.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The contract was not awarded fair and square, I say to the

Premier. It was given to someone, it was not tendered. It did not go through

public tender, I say to the Member for Carbonear. He can laugh all he likes. It

was taken from one company and given to another. Is that fair?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to

the question.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are

that the Premier's fingerprints are all over this very messy affair. He

intervened in April 1991 over the objections of the ENL. He intervened again in

August 1992 over the objections of the ENL board with the full knowledge that

his now Minister of Justice was in a direct conflict of interest position, So I

want to ask the Premier, why does he tolerate a conflict of interest situation

in this case, when he already dealt with the former Minister of Justice, with

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, and with the Member for Port de Grave,

the former, former Minister of Social Services, because he sat in on a meeting

with the Fisheries Loan Board about his brother's boat. I ask the Premier,

directly, to come clean and tell the people of this Province why you have

tolerated this direct conflict of interest, which you were very much aware of

before you put Mr. Roberts in your Cabinet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member,

lest he has any concern, not only my fingerprints are there, my name is there. I

stamped my name on it. So you don't have to trace fingerprints. My name is

there. I have no shame about it, it is there.

When the gentleman became a minister, I wrote a letter to the

Minister of Public Works, or the deputy minister, and said, `Here are the

circumstances. You are directed to ensure that there will be no conflict of

interest. Here are the circumstances. You do it.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to

table those letters in the House so the people can see. You won't have to look

for my fingerprints, you will see my name on it. I will stand with pride and

justify everything I have done in any place in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will even go to the polls if you want to

make this an issue. Let's call an election now and see what the result will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Let's see what the result will be. Eighty

per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty per cent.

PREMIER WELLS: Eighty per cent, and the hon. members have

ten or eleven per cent, I believe.

Now, I have no problem with submitting our actions to the

people of this Province, but I won't stand by, Mr. Speaker, and see hon. members

opposite desperately struggling to try to look credible. They can't, because

they are not credible. They can't put forward a credible position that is

acceptable to the public. So, what do they do? `Let's see if we can find some

mud to sling at the other side. And if we can't find any, let's try to fabricate

some. Let's throw out the big lie and hope it will stick.' Even though you can't

justify it, the big lie will stick.

Mr. Speaker, they didn't even have the competence to invent

the approach. Machiavelli described it 500 years ago in The Prince, and Goebbels

developed it to a fine art when he was promoting it for Germany. Try something

new for a change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier went to

Government House today, tomorrow he would blame it on someone else. He would

blame it on someone else and say that he didn't go to Government House. `No, I

didn't call the election.' That is what he would say.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one person who could do that, and

that is the Premier, and anytime he feels like it, I say, `Go! Go down and see

the Lieutenant-Governor. Do it. Go down and do it.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier can table all the letters he

wants, but what is the Premier really telling the people of this Province today?

- that because someone confesses to a conflict of interest, he is acceptable? Is

that what the Premier is saying? Is the Premier saying that if someone applies

for a job with the Bank of Nova Scotia and advises the bank manager that he

robbed the bank two years ago, it is okay to come and take the job? Is that what

the Premier of this Province is telling the people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. If hon. members will

listen just for a minute, just stop the shouting that normally goes forward to

prevent the truth from coming out, I will tell hon. members what I am saying to

the people of the Province.

I am saying to the people of this Province that there are

talented and able people in all walks of life in this Province. One of the

responsibilities of a premier is to attract -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Again, they don't want the truth to come

out. One of the responsibilities of a premier is to attract the most competent,

experienced and able people who can do the job. Now, in the private sector

people can earn -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Listen now. In the private sector people

can earn a great deal more money than the taxpayers are prepared or willing to

pay. Yet, it is important that we attract special competence, skills and

abilities.

I went to the Minister of Justice knowing that if he accepted

my offer he would reduce his salary by perhaps two-thirds, at least one-half. He

would have to give that up.

MR. WINDSOR: Is he getting a salary from the Liberal

Party now like you did?

PREMIER WELLS: He would have to give that up. I knew

that. I was asking him to do that. He would have to get rid of his partnership.

I told him that. He couldn't retain it. I told him what would have to be done.

He would have to give up all of those things.

Mr. Speaker, he surrendered his partnership, he gave up the

additional income, they are paying him for his interest in the partnership.

Under the agreement they have twenty-four months to pay it out. It is made

public, it is disclosed to the public. The minister made substantial financial

sacrifice to accept the offer. Now, that is what I am telling the people of this

Province, and I will stand on any platform with any member opposite and justify

that position. Because the people of this Province will benefit by the

contribution that he has made already and that he will continue to make for the

period that he is there.

Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this Province understand

that. If the members opposite want to try to fabricate something - because they

can't deal with the policy position of the government, they cannot criticize us

for our policy and our fiscal management. They have to try desperately, hanging

on by their fingernails, to the last eleven points of support in the popularity

polls. Hanging on by their fingernails they have to try and find some basis, so

they said: We cannot do it on a policy basis. We cannot do it on our own merit.

Let's see if we can find some mud to fling at the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is the track you have been on for

three years. Surely you can see the fruits of it. For the sake of maintaining

good and competent opposition, and maintaining a reasonable balance in the

Legislature, do not let yourselves go any further by continuing on the same

track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the

Premier.

I think we have finally found out what the ENL contract to

Halley, Hunt is all about, I say to the Premier, because I am sure that the

Premier has noticed that the amount of money - $120,000 a year for two years -

is almost exactly the amount that the Minister of Justice is going to receive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Now the Premier knew all about the losses

in salary. The Premier was well informed about the losses that the Minister of

Justice was going to incur - he has admitted that - by coming into his Cabinet.

I say to the Premier, I think you have told us the real reason why you

intervened on two occasions for that contract to stay with that law firm,

because if any person was owed $250,000 it would be in their interest that that

firm or company would be profitable, I say to the Premier. I think the Premier

is taking care of that.

Is that the real reason, I ask the Premier, why he intervened

on two occasions to see that that contract was given in the first place to that

law firm; and number two, he intervened to see that it stayed there, above and

beyond the objections of the board of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the marvel is that the hon.

member will be able to stand on his feet again when the falsity of that

proposition is exposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not even know how much they are

getting, and I could not care less how much they are getting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just say again, derisive

laughter will never be an acceptable substitute for intelligent comment. It

never has been and it will never be.

Now Mr. Speaker, to begin with, there never was an

intervention by me at any time. I will table the letters. There never was an

intervention at any time by me - never was, at any time, an intervention by me.

It does not matter how often the hon. members opposite say it, it has no

validity.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the only intervention that

has been done is an intervention to cause the assignment of legal work to be

done on a fair and proper basis. This government did it! Who appointed all the

Tory law firms in the past?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

PREMIER WELLS: Who? And who asked proposals?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, the real change is taking place. For

the first time proposals are invited by all law firms. That is a real change.

The member sitting down in the corner knows that. His law firm - and you could

hardly call them a Liberal law firm -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hardly.

PREMIER WELLS: Hardly. Mr. Williams - there is not much

doubt about his political credentials. Mr. Harris - there is not much doubt

about his political credentials. You could hardly call them a Liberal law firm.

Now to the best of my knowledge, right to this moment, the

firm still does work for a government agency. We did not do what the Tories did.

We did not tear the work away and give it to a Liberal law firm. The member is

living proof of that.

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - the hon. James J. Greene,

the former Leader of the Opposition - hardly a Liberal credential; a nice man,

good lawyer and so on - hardly Liberal.

Mr. Speaker, the real change is for the first time in the

history of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever.

PREMIER WELLS: - for the first time ever, proposals are

invited for legal work. That was this government. It wasn't the Member for

Humber East when she was Minister of Justice. It wasn't any of the members

opposite who did that. It was this government. Real change. Mr. Speaker, I have

some news for the members opposite. There's more real change under way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier,

there's no defence like a good offence and that wasn't a very good offence

either.

I'd like to ask the Premier a question on another topic. For

the past two or three months Francis Ryan, the provincial fire commissioner, has

been on sick leave. Why has the government appointed Municipal and Provincial

Affairs ADM Don Peckham as acting fire commissioner?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Could you repeat the question please?

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

MR. WINDSOR: Wake him up over there (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The question, Mr. Speaker, is why has the

government appointed Municipal and Provincial Affairs ADM Don Peckham as acting

fire commissioner over the past two or three months while the fire commissioner,

Francis Ryan, has been on sick leave?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The government has done no such thing, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister,

who is the acting fire commissioner now? Who's in charge in the provincial fire

commissioner's office?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The deputy fire commissioner, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill you talk too much.

MR. MATTHEWS: You may laugh at that one now, but you will

not laugh at it Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Will the minister confirm that during

this pay period we will see some sixty-eight operational supervisors receive a

pay increase totalling some $240,000?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: I can't confirm that, Mr. Speaker. I will have

to take that question under advisement.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While the

minister is considering that question will he also confirm to this House of

Assembly that during the last month another thirteen or fourteen assistant

district supervisors, also on the management pay scale, received increases?

Probably because of reclassification.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't have that

information at the tips of my fingers. This is a matter which is an

administrative matter within the department and is generally handled by the

executive branch of the department through the appropriate government agency,

such as Treasury Board. I will check on the matter and report back to the House,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the minister might recall

that two years ago, I believe it is, a former minister changed the policy in the

Department, taking away the overtime payments from these district

superintendents and assistant district superintendents for the winter months.

Will the minister find out when he's getting these answers that now that these

people have been reclassified from HI-13 to HI-16, I believe it was, that we

will now have to pay these people on an increased salary for a twelve month

period rather than having to pay the overtime for a four or five month period as

was in the past? Will these new payments cost the taxpayers more money than it

would have been if the government had not changed their policy some two years

ago?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll get the information.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is getting

this information would he inform this House how many management staff in his

department have been reclassified upwards since the wage freeze was put in

place, particularly on the union members within his department?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Was there leave given for Question Period?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: One question, The hon. the Member for Burin

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I have a question for the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Approximately a year ago the Premier wrote a

letter to the community council of Lewin's Cove advising the residents of

Lewin's Cove that if the people there did not want amalgamation with Burin that

amalgamation would not take place. I want to ask the minister does that

commitment by the Premier still stand?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The member seemed to run out of wind or

something, Mr. Speaker, on the end of his question. I did not get it, it died

out but I did not know that the Premier had written the people in Lewin's Cove

about amalgamation.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

ooo

MR. ROBERTS: Could we revert to Notices of Motion, your

honour?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Your Honour called them and waited a

goodly period. Notices of Motion.

ooo

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I accept that but the hubbub down here

among all of us on both sides -

MR. SPEAKER: We will go back to Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move the following motion:

WHEREAS the Election Act revised statutes 1990, provides that

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint a Chief Electoral Officer; and

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the 30th. of

September appointed Mr. Wayne Mitchell of the district of Pleasantville to be

the Chief Electoral Officer with effect from the 19th of October; and

WHEREAS the Elections Act 1991, provides that the office of

the Chief Electoral Officer shall be filled by a resolution of the House of

Assembly; and

WHEREAS the Elections Act 1991 does not come into force until

it has been proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in council and that has not

yet been done; and

WHEREAS the ministry having consulted with other members of

the House of Assembly, propose to nominate Mr. Mitchell to be the Chief

Electoral Officer; and

WHEREAS it is desirable and in the public interest to provide

at this time for the appointment of Mr. Mitchell as if it were being done under

the new Act to come into force, and have it approved by the House of Assembly;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that D. Wayne Mitchell of the

district of Pleasantville be and he is hereby appointed as Chief Electoral

Officer for Newfoundland and Labrador in accordance with the provisions of the

Election Act 1991, not withstanding that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has

not yet proclaimed that Act.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I

will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled:

An Act To Amend The

Summary Proceedings Act, The Liquor Control Act and the Motorized Snow Vehicles

and All Terrain Vehicles Act.

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, last year in the House, before

the House opened I guess while we were sitting here, I raised an issue that has

bothered me, I think the Premier at the time agreed with it but nothing has been

done. I asked then if somehow we could arrange to have small garbage cans under

our desks. It is rather juvenile for everyone to be tearing up paper and

throwing it on the floor, we do not do it in our homes, I do not think we should

be doing it in our House and I really wish something would be done about it.

MR. SPEAKER: On that point of order - The hon. Government

House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond, I do

not know what your honour was going to say but I suspect it may be this. We

share the hon. gentleman's concern, some time ago a request was made to Works,

Services to provide us with garbage boxes to go in under - for whatever reason,

I gather they are being made instead of simply going out and buying some plastic

ones or something. I do not know why they are not here but we will look into it.

The other thing we have done with the full support I know of hon. gentlemen

opposite is stop the business of distributing seventy-five copies of every

statement. I think they now only go to the house leaders on each side, then they

are on the table of the House for anybody who wants them and that too will cut

down on the paper but the hon. gentleman's point is well taken in my view, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to inform hon. members the

matter with respect to the wastepaper baskets is being looked into.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Technology

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's East

Extern asked a question in the House the other day with respect to the budget of

the Economic Recovery Commission. In 1989-90 there was a $3 million budget

allocated for the corporation, I think the next year it was $2.8 million; the

year after that I think it was $2.5 million. This year there was approved $2.213

million and in the last round of cuts - I know the hon. member wants to hear the

answer, there were $2.2 million approved in this year's budget for the recovery

commission and in the last round of reductions we clawed back $130,000, so it is

$2.2 million minus $130,000.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we do motions 4 through

7, first please?

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the

Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the

Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce respectively the following bills:

"

An Act To Remove Anomalies and Errors in the Statute Law

(No. 2)," carried. (Bill No. 66).

"An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act", carried. (Bill

No. 67).

"An Act To Amend The Child Welfare Act", carried. (Bill No.

68).

"An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord

Implementation Newfoundland Act (No. 2), carried. (Bill No. 69).

On motion, Bill Nos. (66, 67, 68, and 69) read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough please

to call Order 30, Bill 58?

MR. SPEAKER: Order 30, Bill 58.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Mineral Act" (Bill No. 58).

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are making a few minor amendments to the

Mineral Act and I would like to go through some of the actions we are taking

here.

We are recommending the extension to the term of the

exploration licence be extended from a maximum of ten years at present to a

maximum of twenty, that is four five-year terms. Replacing the annual ground

rental with a five-year renewable fee. Now the real new thing in this act, to

specify authority to prescribe regulations for environmental protection during

mineral exploration.

We are removing reference to the Labrador Lands Reservation

Act.

We are modifying procedures for receiving applications for

map-staked licences and, relative to exploration expenditures, we are

restricting carry forward of expenditures to a maximum period of ten years.

IF you go through the act clause for clause: in Clause 1, it

is relative to the removal of the reference to the Labrador Lands Reservation

Act. This is purely housekeeping, since that particular act was repealed in 1991

Chapter 36 of the Lands Act was implemented, so we are just removing this as

a housekeeping matter.

In Clause 2, we are making the amendments relative to

environmental impacts, so this provides that any person or company who intends

to carry out a search for minerals that may result in any major ground

disturbance, shall submit a

summary describing the planned activity for the

department's approval before the exploration is done. This is to both reduce or

avoid environmental impacts from the mineral exploration sector.

Clause 3, is addressing procedural problems relative to

map-staking in Labrador. Clause 4, would deal with the effect of the lapse or

expiration of a licence in addition to surrender of a licence. It is clarifying

the present situation in the act.

Clause 6 of the bill would amend the act by setting out the

authority to prescribe the regulations for environmental protection.

Clause 7 is consequential to that and Clause 8 modifies

procedures for receiving applications for licences and the applications of

conditions including carry forward of exploration expenditures.

These are mostly housekeeping matters, Mr. Speaker, and with

those few words I am pleased to recommend second reading.

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

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill,

Mr. Speaker, Bill 58,

An Act To Amend The Mineral Act. I had expected some

changes in legislation, and attitudes, and regimes that this government have put

in place since they have been elected. Having read the 'bible' - this bible that

this government is supposed to be adhering to, I had expected something to be

submitted to this House in this session, especially, that would indicate what

this government proposes to do in the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. In the

'bible' - the bible being a strategic economic plan for Newfoundland and

Labrador - they talk about creating a better investment climate to attract

exploration and new mineral development. Now, Mr. Speaker, the actions speak a

lot louder than the words, of course. We have seen this government create not a

better economic climate but a worse one for new mineral development in this

Province. They have talked about assistance with the cost of infrastructure,

such as hydro lines, access roads and shipping facilities. That, too, is in the

bible, Mr. Speaker. They talk about reducing rental and license fees. They talk

about a fairer tax regime, and they talk about encouraging more value-added

processing. Now, these are positive things they have proposed in the bible.

These are very positive things, but the problem is that is not what is really

occurring. These are positive statements that recognize some of the things that

should be done in order to encourage more development - more exploration, and

more development in the mineral industry. Those are the kinds of things we need

to attract new investment to create jobs and diversify the economy of this

Province, and to help provide the residents, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

with a hope and a sense of confidence for the future for themselves and their

families, and more especially their children.

Mr. Speaker, what disappoints me is that they do not seem to

have a commitment to this plan. Since this government has come to power they

have totally neglected the mining industry. For the first time, I suppose, in a

hundred years, we have been - up until a few months ago - into a period when we

didn't even have an operating mine on the Island portion of the Province. Mr.

Speaker, the mining industry does create a tremendous amount of wealth, and

having had the privilege and the honour of representing two of the communities

that operate the only two iron mines operating in this Province today, I can say

without equivocation, Mr. Speaker, that this government has done absolutely

nothing to create a better economic climate for them to operate. If anything,

Mr. Speaker, they seem to have singled out this industry in taxation. When they

instituted the infamous payroll tax, they were the only resource-based industry

that was included in it. Mr. Speaker, they are the only resource-based industry

that pays the maximum 2 per cent payroll tax.

Given the state of the economy, Mr. Speaker, I honestly

expected that what this government was going to propose was something that was

going to stimulate the economy by doing some of the things proposed in the

bible. These are not things that I have dreamt up, Mr. Speaker, these are things

that I have read in the bible. Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought that they would

propose some of the things that they have talked about, but again it is all

words and no action. I expected amendments to The Mineral Act that would

facilitate and encourage mineral exploration and development, Mr. Speaker, but

we haven't seen that. All we have seen this government do is deal with

environmental controls. That is what it did.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't mean that to sound as if I am

against environmental controls in the mining industry. I live in an area, and

have had the opportunity of working in the mineral industry, in the mines, and I

do understand - and so do the people who live there - that there must be a

respect for our environment. There has to be a respect for our environment. Mr.

Speaker, there must be a recognition, this government has to be cognizant of the

fact, that all this bill really does is serve to increase costs to mining

companies which this government, by the way, admits, and the minister himself

admits, is a deterrent to investment, a deterrent to exploration opportunities.

MR. DOYLE: Safety Murphy..

MR. A. SNOW: No, E.P.

MR. DOYLE: Oh, E.P.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the bible a

reference by the hon. member for Placentia, to an individual by the name of

Murphy. It was in reference to E.P. Murphy, who used to be employed in Labrador

City, not Safety John Murphy who was another well-known Newfoundlander working

in the mines in Labrador City.

AN HON. MEMBER: E.S. Murphy, Endangered Species Murphy,

right?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, just to quote from the Liberal

bible, the Strategic Economic Plan, and I quote from page 64: `Generally the

high cost of infrastructure in new mining projects, the relatively high tax

burden on the mining industry, and the inadequate levels of funding from mineral

explorations, are major constraints to mineral development.'

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you quoting from? Is that the

Book of Douglas?

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Speaker, this is the Book of Mining

in the bible. They will change and challenge, Mr. Speaker, where the people are

now being challenged because they were shortchanged.

Mr. Speaker, the mineral industry was looking for an

incentive so that they could go ahead with further expansion and more

exploration. Mr. Speaker, they do provide a tremendous amount of wealth to this

Province. They don't need to have more burdens placed on them, more tax burden

or cost burden, Mr. Speaker, because they are competing in a very, very

competitive market. They are into the global economy, Mr. Speaker, and they have

to compete with places such as Brazil and Sweden, and they don't need any

increased tax burden or increased cost of mining. What they need is incentives,

because we have to be concerned that we don't place too much of a burden,

whether it is operating burden with regulations, or whether it is the tax burden

that drives up the cost of mining, or burdens that are going to drive up the

cost of exploration and thus, if you cannot go out and explore for new minerals

we will undoubtedly find ourselves without any more operating mines because, by

the very nature of a mine, how it operates, there will come a day when that

particular mine will close down.

Mr. Speaker, having said that - having expressed our opinion

on this side that we were looking for incentives in the industry rather than

things that were going to be regressive in the industry - I will support this

bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, but I would urge the minister and his

government to move, in the next Cabinet meeting they have, to include things

that will stimulate the mining industry - not restrict it.

It is important that we do things to allow the mining

industry to expand so it can create more opportunities for employment and create

more wealth in this Province. If anything, what this bill does is, it makes it

even more urgent that this government has to move to implement the things that

are in their so-called bible. Don't leave this on the shelf. Implement the

suggestions that are here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Oh yes, I believe in the bible, as I am sure

the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs believes in the

bible - and I believe in it with faith. That is why I encourage them to

implement what you have suggested in the bible - in your strategic and economic

plan. If anything, this Bill 58 makes it even more urgent that you implement the

things that you suggest are your road map for development for the future of the

mining operations in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he

closes the debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my hon. critic

from Labrador, but I would like to tell him that this bill does not increase

cost to the mining industry. This bill is a move forward in the direction of the

Strategic Economic Plan.

This particular bill and another one also on the Order Paper,

No. 51, both between them cancel close to half-a-million dollars in fees and

costs to the mining industry in this Province, and we are moving in the right

direction.

In particular, we are moving in the right direction in

Labrador. For example, this bill acknowledges that we have cancelled reserved

area licences and are going to map-staking exclusively in Labrador.

As an amendment to regulations that did not have to come

forward in the bill, I have recently asked Cabinet colleagues for their approval

and they have approved a reduction in the work requirements on claims in

Labrador by 40 per cent to encourage exploration in Labrador. That has been

done. We want to encourage the exploration sector.

The annual ground rental that was there previously has been

cancelled, to be replaced by a single, smaller fee that occurs only every five

years.

We have recently completed a study of taxation in the mining

industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and we are going forward, as much as we

are able to relative to the recommendations of the Strategic Economic Plan. Mr.

Speaker, I am looking forward to the implementation of the recommendations in

the economic plan. I have no further comments at this time. I just want to say

we are moving in the right direction to encourage industry. I move second

reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No. 58)

MR. ROBERTS: Order 28, Bill No. 53.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Occupational Health And Safety Act." (Bill No. 53)

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce

for second reading this particular bill, Bill 53. It provides for the necessary

change in the fact that over the last few years it has been brought to the

attention of ourselves in the department and many hon. members as a result of

some prosecutions in some cases that had occurred where companies had been found

negligent under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In some instances, particularly when there was a fatality,

which unfortunately happened in a couple of cases, there was some negligence

attached to the accident which was verified in the court and the court saw fit

to impose the maximum fine which was available under the law, which was $5000,

that the company itself would be fined $5000.

Just very briefly by way of introduction, Mr. Speaker, it is

fair again to point out that that fine and this change has nothing to do with

compensation to the individuals. The individual's compensation, of course, would

be determined by entitlement under the Workers' Compensation Act and so on which

would be sums of money much greater than this plus any insurances that were

covered personally and otherwise. The fact of the matter is that it is generally

perceived and it is generally held in the Province that if the company itself,

if the employer, is found to be negligent and if charges are laid and are

verified through the courts and through the proceedings a fine of $5000 maximum

is imposed, it would not be a suitable deterrent and would not be a suitable

penalty for the company. We did some research and had some consultation, again

with the representatives of the labour movement, representatives of employers,

and researched across the country, and found that the range across the country

did range in other provinces from a maximum of $5000, which currently applies in

Newfoundland, and also applied in a couple of other jurisdictions, particularly

Atlantic Canada, to a maximum of $500,000 in other jurisdictions, in more

wealthy provinces like British Columbia and Ontario.

We were looking at a range that would be most appropriate for

the size and nature of the business enterprises that operate in our Province,

particularly in an industrial setting. Upon reflection and consultation it was

deemed most appropriate, as is now spelled out in this Bill, that the

legislation be amended so that the courts would be given leeway to impose a fine

of up to $50,000 rather than up to $5000. When a company, or a person

representing a company contravenes the act in the regulations, or fails to

comply, and so on, then in that event the fine would be up to $50,000 or a term

of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.

As in the previous legislation there was also a maximum $5000

fine and the possibility, particularly when there was an action that should be

corrected, a continuing fine of $500 a day for each day the offence continued.

We are now suggesting that the maximum should go to $50,000 and that the daily

penalty would go from $500 to $5000. What the actual fine would be, Mr. Speaker,

would still be determined by the courts, but this is enabling legislation that

enables us through the law and gives the court a wider range and higher limits

in which to impose penalties upon persons or companies that are found to be in

contravention of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We believe, quite

firmly, that this will help along with a number of other measure that are there

to see that employers, in this instance, take their responsibilities for a safe

workplace a little more seriously, and that this deterrent type of measure,

which is the last straw, will in fact be useful with the higher levels of

penalty because it is generally accepted that the existing levels were too low.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister indicated this is just enabling legislation

which simply increases the amount of fines that are levied on employers who go

outside the realm of what's deemed to be acceptable health and safety standards.

All this does is impose a greater deterrent on an employer because of unsafe

workplace events.

What we should be doing is focusing on an education program

much more than we have in this Province to make sure that accidents don't

happen, so we don't have to fine someone $5,000, $50,000 or five dollars. What

we need is a sound education program aimed at both the employer and employee so

this thing does not occur. That's where we're falling behind in this Province.

That's why we have so many accidents that, as the minister alluded to, have to

go to Workers' Compensation. Because both the employer and the employee need to

be further educated in safety at the workplace.

This only deals with court procedures, what fines the courts

are going to levy. The question is, how many enforcement people are out there to

see that this is not going to happen? The minister referred to the fact that

there's been a couple of tragedies because of unsafe workplaces and they perhaps

shouldn't have happened. They should never have happened. What we need in this

Province are more enforcement officers, more safety inspectors, to see that this

kind of thing does not occur. That's where the Province needs to beef up its

legislation. To see that we have more enforcement people so that we don't have

to reach the stage where this gets to court.

This piece of legislation is good news. It's good news in the

sense that employers - especially smaller ones, and when I'm talking about

smaller ones I'm talking about your little average construction company. Fifty

thousand dollars would be a significant fine for that employer. I'm not sure

$50,000 would mean a whole lot to a company as big as IOC, Abitibi-Price or

Kruger, or some of the contractors at Bull Arm. A $50,000 deterrent, they can

probably save hundreds of thousands by trying to get away with unsafe procedures

for a day or two. That'll make up for any $50,000 fine.

What the minister has to do is educate both the company and

the employees along with having more enforcement officers to see that we don't

have an unsafe workplace. This deterrent for negligence that the minister has

here, while it's an improvement over what we had, what we need to do is to solve

the problem before anyone gets to court. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of

this legislation at second reading in principle. It is something that those

who've been involved in the workplace and the trade unions in this Province had

been calling for for a very good reason. Because the maximum fines available for

violations of occupational health and safety were inordinately low when compared

to two things. When compared to the dangers and the flagrancy with which

occupational health and safety regulations can be ignored, the extreme danger

that can be created.

I suppose in part because in some cases the extreme costs of

alleviating those safety hazards that exist, when it becomes a situation that an

employer, or a person organizing an enterprise, or an industry, has to make a

choice between workplace safety and spending a considerable amount of money to

alleviate the hazard, the deterrent has to be higher. It has to be high enough

so as to not make the industry able to save money by violating workplace safety.

That is the principle behind increasing fines of a nature such as this and I'm

not sure they're even high enough. The maximums need to be very high.

I am not suggesting that every violation of occupational

health and safety would attract the maximum, but if you have a situation where

an industrial owner knows that enterprise is going to have to spend a couple of

hundred thousand dollars to resolve a workplace violation, then they may be

tempted to withstand a few infractions, withstand going to court a few times,

and be seen to be able to save money in the long run by doing that. So the

maximum fines have to be high to permit the court to exercise some control over

these industries if they are indeed intent to flagrantly violate occupational

health and safety rules.

The principle is a good one, that fines should be high so as

to deter industries which might consider taking a few hits - if you want to call

it that - taking a few violations and paying the fines because it is cheaper for

them to do that than clean up their act, so I agree with the principle of the

Bill.

There was also a case prior to this, and I know that this

comparison has been made by others in the past. It was such that a person who

was violating the hunting laws could receive a higher fine and a more severe

detriment to their personal incomes than an industry violating workplace safety

rules. That was seen by many to show a greater concern for the wildlife and the

fish than they were showing for the workers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think that analogy was a fair analogy - not

one that was concocted or made up or blasted out of proportion by the people

making it, but a fair analogy because the laws with respect to wildlife and

protection of the fish and the forests seem to have been given a fairly high

priority by the courts, by the enforcement agencies, by the government. We hear

every day about people losing their vehicles, losing their skidoos and losing

trucks, losing equipment, and being fined incredible amounts of money - four,

five and six thousand dollars - for wildlife violations, and yet we had a

circumstance where occupational health and safety violations, where the lives

and safety of workers at the workplace were treated far less severely.

When you have a situation where there can be an economic

advantage to an employer or to the operator of an industrial plant where there

is an economic incentive to violate legislation, then that must be stopped.

I am not convinced that the fines are high enough. Fifty

thousand dollars may not be sufficient to deter a large industry from taking

advantage of the fact that the fines are not as high as they should be to

violate legislation, to violate the regulations, to fail to comply with an order

made under the act, or to fail to follow the code of practice adopted.

There ought to be a way to enforce these orders in a more

severe manner. The fine and imprisonment of an individual or a company - you

cannot imprison a company, Mr. Speaker, and there is no provision here to go

after the directors of a company or the operating officers or the people

responsible. It merely says, a person who contravenes the act and regulations.

Most of this is done not by persons but by corporations who

obviously cannot be imprisoned, but certain individuals directing those

corporations ought to be exposed to severe punishments for violating laws,

particularly if there is a flagrant violation of occupational health and safety

laws. So, I support the Bill but I do not think it goes far enough, I think the

fines could be higher, we see again a $50,000 fine is the maximum now. Last week

or the week before the Minister of Environment and Lands brought in a piece of

legislation increasing to $500,000 maximum fines for violation of the Waste

Disposal Act. Mr. Speaker, what is more important the destruction to the

environment that we cause by improper disposal of waste or the destruction of

human lives caused by violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act? I

ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this where we are placing our hierarchy of priorities,

that the environment is more important than human lives?

I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the environment is not

important, obviously it is. I supported that legislation but Mr. Speaker, we are

now looking at human lives, as the downside here, if you violate occupational

health and safety regulations if you are prepared to allow your factory, or your

plant, or your industry to continue to contravene the regulations, to fail to

comply with orders made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act or fail to

follow your code of practice, your fine is one-tenth, the maximum fine is

one-tenth that which you can be fined for violating the Waste Disposal Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want the minister when he gets up to tell

us why it is his government sees that there is a priority for waste disposal and

we can have a maximum fine of $500,000 but when it comes to workplace safety the

maximum fine is only $50,000. There is just as much incentive, Mr. Speaker, for

owners of industries to ignore occupational health and safety rules and

regulations which might cost them money as it is to avoid complying with the

Waste Disposal Act because it might save them money. So, Mr. Speaker, I think

this government has its priorities all wrong. We have to look at this

legislation in the context of the other legislation that this House, in this

session, is being asked to support. I know the minister is a clever man and he

can get up and he can make some nice words and explanations but I ask him to

really deal with the meat of that objection.

Why is it that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is

regarded as having necessary the enforcement with only a maximum fine of

$50,000, when the Waste Disposal Act that we have been asked to support requires

a maximum of $500,000 to provide an adequate deterrent. Now, we are not talking

about somebody, a shopkeeper who fails to comply with a particular act, sure

$50,000 is enough to provide an incentive, but this Act also covers the Iron Ore

Company of Canada, Abitibi-Price, FPI, big, huge industries, Mr. Speaker, that

have complex industrial operations, that carry out dangerous activities, the

construction activities at Hibernia, Mr. Speaker, are subject to Occupational

Health and Safety Act. Mr. Speaker, these are not small companies that may

incidentally violate a piece of legislation and once the occupational health and

safety officer goes there, rushing off to comply and doing their very best. We

are not just dealing with small companies, we are dealing with big major

companies, major construction sites, very dangerous operations, safety

compliance can be very expensive, Mr. Speaker.

We have open season now on contractors in Newfoundland, so we

will have Nova Scotia contractors coming in, we will have New Brunswick

contractors coming in, Prince Edward Island contractors coming in because the

government has opened the doors. They are going to have to comply with our

legislation, Mr. Speaker, in a very dangerous activity. Construction operations,

Mr. Speaker, are notoriously dangerous in terms of workplace safety and loss of

life and accidents can be very serious, very quickly. We've seen it happen, Mr.

Speaker, many times.

It's important that all people operating who are subject to

the Occupational Health and Safety Act must be aware that this is a very serious

matter and the Government of Newfoundland takes it at least as seriously as

waste disposal, where the maximum fine is $500,000. Why we have a maximum fine

of $50,000 here. Everybody is not going to be fined $50,000, everybody's not

going to be fined $500,000. But we were told that the reason for the Waste

Disposal Act maximum being increased to $500,000 was because it was necessary

for a major deterrent for major environmental damage.

There are a lot of major corporations operating in this

Province and will continue to operate in this Province that may need to know

that this government is serious about occupational health and safety and won't

tolerate objections to it. Won't tolerate the violation of it, won't tolerate

the failure to comply.

I have to agree with the minister that, yes, some changes

have been made in occupational health and safety. They put some people in place

who were supposed to be in place two or three years ago. They finally got around

to adding some safety officers. The legislation has been praised. I know the

minister is very proud of it. The legislation is praised across the country.

Wonderful occupational health and safety legislation. Those who praise it say in

the next breath: but it'd be wonderful if they enforced it.

So now at least the minister is starting. I don't know why

the minister won't give the legislation time to work and actually start cutting

down occupational or workplace accidents, and thereby reducing the costs of

workers' compensation, instead of gutting the benefits to injured workers, which

this government has decided to do as part of their new elements of change.

They're following the Michael Wilson approach to economics. Attack the weak, the

elderly, the sick, those requiring family allowances, injured workers. That's

the Michael Wilson approach to managing the economy and managing the government

finances. That's the approach this government has taken.

Why doesn't the minister increase the fines higher in

occupational health and safety? Make sure, make it clear, that a deterrent to

workplace injuries is going to be taken seriously by this government, and then

see the benefits in the cost to workers' compensation. You don't have to

compensate injured workers if they don't get injured. They don't get time off

work and have to be paid if they're not injured. That's what occupational health

and safety is all about.

So I want the minister to tell us why his government doesn't

take as seriously occupational health and safety as it does the cost to the

environment of waste disposal. When the Minister of Environment and Lands

brought in a bill a couple of weeks ago to increase the fines from $2,000 to

$500,000 for - I won't call it littering, although that's one of the offenses -

for disposal of waste in the environment, the maximum fine was increased from

$2,000 to $500,000. We were told that was necessary because there are

industries, there are operations in this Province, that can cause severe damage

and they need a severe deterrent

I say that the danger to workers because of violations of

occupational health and safety can cost them their lives. Because if an

employer, an industrial plant, or a factory - whether it be Abitibi-Price which

carries on dangerous woods operations, which carries on dangerous operations in

the manufacture of newsprint in its plant at Grand Falls and at Stephenville,

Iron Ore Company of Canada in Labrador, the Hibernia partners out at Bull Arm -

are carrying on very dangerous activities, Mr. Speaker, and workers are exposed,

sometimes without their knowledge, mostly without their knowledge, to very grave

dangers and some have already lost their lives even at the Hibernia project as a

result of workplace accidents.

Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, the potential loss of life due to

occupational health and safety violations is a far more serious matter than the

damage to the environment that will be caused by illegal disposal of waste. At

least, in many cases or in most cases, the environment can be cleaned up at

great expense but the loss of the human life cannot be replaced. So I say while

I support the principle of this Bill, that we should increase the fines, I do

not support the amount, Mr. Speaker, I think the amount should be the same -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now the Minister of Education says that I am

an extremist. Well perhaps he should talk to the Minister of Environment and

Lands who brought in a waste disposal bill two weeks ago and said that we should

increase the fines for littering from $2,000 to $500,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are both extremists (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the extremist

position. If I wanted to be an extremist I would come in and say that the

Minister of Environment and Lands should increase the fines for littering to

half-a-million dollars. Well, that is not what she was talking about, she was

talking about serious waste disposal problems but the fines are the same. The

same signs that you now see out in the area near the town dump, they always put

them near the town dump - next to the town dump, next to the gate you will see a

sign that says: 'Maximum fine $2,000 for dumping'. Well that is now going to be

changed to $500,000. That is going to frighten off the fellow without a cent to

his name, Mr. Speaker, he is going to be really frightened, I am not going to

dump my garbage bag here now because I am going to be fined half-a-million

dollars. That is really going to change a lot of things around the dumps in

Newfoundland, to change that from $2,000 to $500,000.

But, Mr. Speaker, the government brought in a bill to do that

and it is going to be saved for somebody who is a major polluter and who is

flagrantly violating the regulations, I know that and so it should be, but, Mr.

Speaker, why does the Occupational Health and Safety Act only have fines to

$50,000 because we could have equally well, a violation of an Occupational

Health and Safety Act that results in a severe disaster and is deserving of a

fine of half-a-million dollars to provide a deterrent, and to make sure these

people know, these people who are running these industries, know that the

Newfoundland Government is as serious about workplace health and safety, as

serious about the life and safety of workers as it is about the environment.

I want to see that changed, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how we

can make one rule -

MS. VERGE: Would that protect a professor from damage to

the head due to falling books?

MR. HARRIS: I do not know. The minister is not here - oh

yes, he is. I think under occupational health and safety, if a professor were

walking around the library at the university and books were falling on his head,

I think that that would be certainly an occupational hazard deserving of

protection and I think that even former Ministers of Finance could benefit from

proper occupational health and safety legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the intent of the legislation is

good so I have to support it at second reading, but I want to give notice to the

minister that at third reading I will be bringing in an amendment. At third

reading I will be bringing in an amendment to change the $50,000 to $500,000 so

that it is the same as the Waste Disposal Act and the same priority is given to

workers safety as is given to environmental protection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member for

Kilbride, I want to welcome to the gallery today on behalf of all members, a

group of fifty-one Grade VII students from St. Kevin's Elementary School in the

Goulds, district of Kilbride, with their vice-principal, Mrs. Jean Tobin,

teachers: Mr. Rick Gagnon, Mr. Paul Edwards, Miss Coleen Field and student

assistant, Miss Susan Furlong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am only going to speak for a few minutes on this act. I

mostly want to get up to recognize the students who are in the gallery and to

say to the members of the House of Assembly, that I did have the opportunity to

go and visit St. Kevin's school some time ago, I guess some time last month and

speak with these students, all the Grades VI and VII students. I spoke with most

of them on the operations of the House of Assembly. I'm very glad to see them

here today.

Today we're doing an amendment to a Bill to amend the

Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is a very important Bill to workers in

this Province. As was pointed out by the former speaker one of the aspects of

the Bill is to increase fines for people who contravene the Occupational Health

and Safety Act. The fines for people who contravene it will be up to a maximum

of $50,000.

Mr. Speaker, as the former speaker said, that does not seem

to be a tremendously large amount of money for people who are putting at risk

people who work for a living. I would say the fines should be higher. The first

group of employers who should be investigated under the Occupational Health and

Safety Act right now should be the Government of Newfoundland, since they

started cutting back particularly in the health care system, and putting at risk

all of the people who are left in the health care system and particularly the

nurses.

There is a big jump in back injuries in particular, but

injuries to health workers in this Province over the last year or so since the

government laid off I think some 2,500 over the last couple of years, was their

plan. I think 700 or 800 of them were in the health care system. The nurses took

a big blow in the number of people who were laid off. So now we have one nurse

left in the system doing the work of two nurses, so that they find it extremely

difficult to carry out their duties. A lot of them work on a twelve-hour shift

which is very tiring, I would imagine. Any member in this House of Assembly

working physical work as the nurses do, and very hard work, on a twelve-hour

shift, I'm sure any of us would find it extremely difficult.

I would say probably one of the reasons why the fines are not

set higher is because the government sees that it's putting its workers in

jeopardy itself and it's protecting the hospital associations or the hospital

boards or whoever would be sued under the aspect of putting people at risk for

occupational health and safety.

Just to get back to the students in the gallery again, when I

visited the students, I found them to be very informed about what's going on in

our Province. Very informed about the democratic system in our Province. I

remember going through one of their text books which was based mainly on the

federal system. It showed some examples of the House of Commons in there, and

they'll see that our House is similar to that. To show the interest that the

students do have in the day to day affairs - particularly the students in St.

Kevin's - today when they came to the House of Assembly they brought along with

them some letters which were addressed to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Unfortunately the minister is away on business today and I can't present them

personally while the students are here, but I can assure them that I will

present them.

The issue here, which could be related to the Occupational

Health and Safety Act, very directly, the issue is, as far as I understand it,

the dump that this government is trying to bring to this Province and put in

Long Harbour. The students, the young people in this Province, just so that the

Minister of Environment cannot get up in this House again and say that she is

not aware that people are objecting to the bringing of garbage from the United

States into this Province, just so she will never be able to say that again, the

students of the Grade VI or VII class in St. Kevin's - Grade VII class today -

have asked me to deliver these letters to her. So we'll know from now on that

she has more than one letter concerning importing garbage into our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Excellent school.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, it's an excellent school and some

very good teachers. Though I think the vice-principal was introduced as Mr.

Tobin, but it's Mrs. Tobin.

I'm sure the Minister of Environment when she gets her

letters from the students will finally get the message that people - young

people, middle-aged people, old fellows like ourselves, and young women like our

colleague - are concerned about importing garbage into this Province.

Now that we are doing an Occupational Health and Safety Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is relevant.

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is very relevant certainly for the

people who have to work in this garbage dump, or incinerator, and anyone who has

to work around the dump or incinerator that is planned for Long Harbour. They

will certainly be left open to probable health and safety violations just from

the emissions that are coming out of the smokestack.

Now that we have been touted around the world, especially in

the United States, as a garbage disposal area, we have found - and I would like

to inform the students that their letter is very timely - we have found now that

we have another company asking to come into Newfoundland to dump more American

garbage into Newfoundland. A company wants to dump some garbage in Labrador in

the pits that are left up them from the Schefferville mining.

Now that the government did not take a stand in the beginning

and say: No, we will not accept garbage from other areas of the Province, we

have put out the word now, particularly down in the United States where they

have a massive problem in waste disposal, we are now being touted in the eastern

United States as the garbage dump of North America. We already have two

proposals which could bring garbage from the United States into our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I say for the sake of occupational health and

safety, and for the sake of the environment of our Province, and for the sake of

our tourist industry, and for the sake of every individual Newfoundlander, this

government should today take a stand and say: No, we will not accept other

people's garbage. We have a big enough problem with our own garbage.

We have St. John's harbour which is polluted beyond reason

right now, and we have a group set up to try to clean that up. We have Robin

Hood Bay, which is taking most of the garbage from the northeastern Avalon,

which is filling up faster than we can find places to put our garbage, and the

people working around Robin Hood Bay, or down around St. John's harbour,

obviously would come under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

This garbage and this pollution that is around there is

endangering them as they work daily. Certainly a lot of longshoremen work every

day down around St. John's harbour, and a lot of people work on the ships. I

have a son who works on one of the offshore vessels myself, and every time he

comes into the harbour I am hoping that he never falls off the boat because he

will not come out of the water, I would say. It certainly would be a danger for

the occupational health and safety of his workplace to have the garbage...

Now we have enough problems in our Province with our own

garbage. We do not need garbage from other places - and this is what the

students from St. Kevin's Elementary are trying to tell this government. They

want the government to just take a stand. You set the policies.

The Premier is on, arguing that we can't not accept the

proposals if someone puts them in. We set the policies in this Province. If we

have a policy in this Province that we will not accept garbage from other areas

of other provinces or states in the Eastern Seaboard, well that is our policy.

It does not matter about the environmental act then, or it does not matter if

the people who are going to try to dump their garbage in our Province - the two

companies now that we have - we will probably have ten or fifteen in the next

three or four years unless this government is put out and the policy is cleared

up. We should have a policy statement from the government that we will not

accept garbage into this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Change the legislation.

MR. R. AYLWARD: All they have to do, if they want to - if

they worry about being sued for not abiding by the environmental laws that are

set down in our Province - well change them. You have no problem at all changing

legislation when it comes to their own workers, to take away their benefits, and

take away negotiated benefits and wage settlements.

MS. VERGE: We will do it next week. By leave we will put

it through on Monday.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, next week, if necessary I am sure

all members on this side of the House would, by leave, allow the government to

bring in an amendment to its environmental act, if that is what they need, or

whatever acts need to be changed. If they wish to bring in that amendment we

will, by leave on this side of the House, with very little discussion if they

like, allow them to change the acts that our Premier thinks need to be changed

so that we can make a clear policy statement in this Province that we will not

be accepting garbage - environmentally accepted garbage, if there is any such

thing - or contaminated garbage or whatever they are trying to bring into our

Province.

We should make a policy statement in this Province that we

will not accept garbage from outside of our Province.

MS. VERGE: We'll have a law banning the importation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Minister of Health now said something

about second-hand garbage or something (Inaudible)?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Second-hand cars. I don't know what he

means by second-hand cars. If that's what his government is planning to do, fill

up second-hand cars with garbage and bring them into the Province so that we

don't only get the garbage but we'll have the old car wreck at the end of the

line, maybe that's probably as far as our new Minister of Health has thought on

this issue. That's probably as much thought as our Minister of health - and if

any minister in the government, if any minister on that side of the House

besides our Environment minister should have given this issue very deep thought

and a lot of consideration, it certainly should be our Minister of Health.

By bringing in garbage from other places we're going to be

bringing in rats with the garbage, we're going to be bringing in disease and

germs and whatever else, Mr. Speaker. Certainly anyone working in the area will

certainly be - the Occupational Health and Safety Act will certainly relate to

that. Now I don't know why our Minister of Health is treating this issue as a

joke. It is not a joke. It certainly is not a joke to the majority of people in

the Province that we are considering in this Province to bring in other people's

garbage to our Province.

Now I don't care if some company will come in and tell me

that we can burn it off and create electricity and give cheaper electricity to

the consumers of this Province. I know that's not going to happen. I'm positive

that's not going to happen. Because if it was going to happen, the fellows who

owned the garbage, the ones who have millions of tons of garbage piled up on...

Staten Island. Now is that out in New York Harbour somewhere?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I was never down there so I don't know,

it's probably one of the places I missed when I was travelling.

MS. VERGE: Up from Manhattan.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just off from Manhattan there's an island

called Staten Island and there is a mountain of garbage on that island now,

waiting for some place to dump it. Mr. Speaker, it has a big sign on it. I

haven't been there but I can see it now. There's a big sign on that island now,

with big red letters: Clyde Wells will accept this in Newfoundland. That's what

I would say would be an appropriate sign to have on it. I haven't been there to

look at it. That huge mountain, an island full of garbage, that's waiting down

in New York Harbour now for the go-ahead, for the okay, from our Premier and the

government of this Province to bulldoze it on some type of a barge and bring it

up to Long Harbour.

If we can't get enough of it in Long Harbour, if Long Harbour

can't burn it off fast enough, what we'll do with it, we'll pile it on a barge

and bring it to Seven Islands, pile it on the train, and whip it up to

Schefferville and bury it in the pits that were left from the mining operations

that were near Schefferville and some in Labrador.

That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable from a health

point of view, it is not acceptable from a health and safety point of view, as

we're discussing here today, it is not acceptable from a tourism industry point

of view. I'm sure the minister of our new department, the Department of ITT,

would agree with me. IT and T.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Industry, Trade and Technology, that's

what it is. ITT. With a double t. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the new Minister of

Tourism, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, would agree with me that it

will do no good for the tourism industry of Newfoundland for us in this Province

to be labelled as the garbage dump of North America. I'm sure there are not too

many tourists going to come down to see garbage dumps in North America, the

garbage that's shipped around North America. To come to Newfoundland to see that

garbage. They don't need to because they can see it from where they are. They

try to get away from that. They have so much garbage down around there now that

they're trying to get away from it and come to a place like Newfoundland that

has clean fresh air.

I remember meeting last summer some friends of my wife's

family who came down here from some part of the Eastern Seaboard. The Boston

area is where they're ordinarily from. They couldn't believe how clean the air

felt, how fresh the air was. They could take a deep breath of good fresh air,

especially on an evening just after sunset. They couldn't believe that there

were no smells and no pollution and no smog and no dust. They could see - when

it was clear enough this summer - they could see pretty well from Cowan Heights

where they lived, all across St. John's, right out towards St. John's Harbour

and see Cabot Tower.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they said if they could only get that down

in their state. There must be people in the Boston area who would like to have

that good clean fresh air and I say they are the ones who are promoting sending

their garbage to Long Harbour and to Labrador because they know once they get

rid of all that garbage that is blocked up on the islands and blocking up all

their landfill areas, that once that garbage is brought to Long Harbour, with

the permission of this government, eventually they will get some fresh air

because they have pretty good rules down there in California, on the western

side of the United States about pollution control in automobiles, and that is

spreading across the United States.

The big problem they have is what to do with their garbage,

how to get rid of the smell and the stench of the garbage they have lying around

on Staten Island, which is one place, and different areas inside and outside of

Boston. They then came up with this big idea, we have an area called

Newfoundland on the Eastern Seaboard that is accessible by water, so it would

not be hard to fill up one of these barges. There was a barge floating around

down in the United States a couple of years ago that went into a dozen or so

different places trying to unload but it wound up back in New York again. They

said, we have a government in a place called Newfoundland that is willing to

accept this garbage. They have big unemployment problems up there so they are

susceptible to a gimmick or a con to say that we can create jobs by dumping our

garbage in that area. We will create jobs, I am sure we will. I am sure we will

create jobs in the health care system for the people who will have to be looked

after, after this garbage is being dumped and piled, and after the toxic fumes

that are going to come out of that smokestack finally get dispersed around our

Province.

They will create jobs in the health care system eventually,

unless this government wises up and listens to people like the students from St.

Kevin's Elementary and refuses to accept the garbage from anywhere else in North

America to be dumped in our Province. The front benchers in particular, the

Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs are

making a joke out of a serious issue. I am not standing here saying this to

waste time, Mr. Speaker. I am very serious about this.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am glad the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs said that because I do not know a big lot about occupational

health and safety. He is the expert on occupational health and safety in this

House. He taught the Member for St. John's South all he knows. That is what he

told us anyway, but he is the one who is promoting to bring garbage into this

Province. He is going into his district and he will not take a stand against it.

If you know so much about occupational health and safety why would you want to

being in garbage and set up an incinerator that has to send toxic emissions out

of the smokestack? Every one of them do. They all do.

We had a problem this year in Come By Chance when the Mayor

of Sunnyside or Come By Chance met with our Minister of Environment and Lands to

have some tests done on the Come By Chance oil refinery to see what was coming

out of the smokestack, to see if it was dangerous. There were people getting

sick in his community, it seemed, more so than ever. Our Minister of Environment

and Lands said: we do not need to send anybody out to do these checks because

the company is doing it. Now, that is the most stupid thing I ever heard. What

is the company going to come back and tell you? That they are polluting the

country, that they are going to get a $500,000 fine when they come back and tell

you they are poisoning people and they are killing vegetation? They are never

going to come back and say that. Our Minister of Environment and Lands would not

take the time or would not send her technical people out to check the emissions.

Maybe they were not harmful but there was a request from a

community in Newfoundland for our Environment Department to go out and check the

emissions, a simple request. That would not be unusual if you were sitting in

the shadow of a smokestack that was pumping out smoke day in and day out. It

would not be unusual for you to want it checked, but you do not want the people

who are pumping out the smoke to check it and give you a report. You would want

some independent people, some people who are responsible to the electorate of

this Province, someone from the Department of Environment, whose salary is being

paid by the taxpayers of this Province, to go out and check it. and if it is

fine, give us a report. You would certainly feel much better about it than if

the company which could be, might or might not be causing the pollution - they

are not going to come out and say: yes, I am sorry, we have been polluting the

country for the last six or eight months, and very dangerous chemicals have gone

over Come By Chance and Sunnyside, and the people are getting sick from these

chemicals that we are putting out, since we are not maintaining our equipment

properly - which was a definite problem out in Come By Chance last year, because

they ran out of money.

Now, that company is not going to say that. But our Minister

of Environment won't send anyone out to check it. Now we are going to get some

garbage coming up to Long Harbour. We are going to have our Minister of

Environment requested again to go down and check the emissions that will come

from that smokestack. The type of garbage that will be coming in is a bigger

concern to me. Mr. Speaker, the type of garbage that will be shipped to this

Province is the major concern - what will happen, what the dangers will be.

Now, when you put the garbage into the incinerator, no matter

if it is only paper, there are emissions going to come out of that incinerator -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: - harmful or not harmful, but emissions.

Something comes up through that smokestack.

MR. DOYLE: Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The minister can say no all he likes. A

company wouldn't build a smokestack if you didn't have something coming up

through it - you wouldn't need it. And you're going to have one.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I don't understand why the Premier of

this Province would even consider bringing in garbage from other areas when we

have a Minister of Environment who hasn't given enough thought to check what we

have in place now, to check the Come By Chance oil refinery when requested. We

have a Minister of Health who treats this as a joke. We have our so-called

expert in occupational health and safety, who is promoting that to bring it into

his own district, to create five or six jobs, or twenty jobs, or whatever he

thinks he might create in Long Harbour.

We have a pollution problem in Long Harbour today, right now,

and that should be cleaned up immediately. That is definitely an occupational

health and safety problem today. It is an environmental problem and an

occupational health and safety problem for anyone down there working on the site

now. There are some people working down there now, and there are going to be

people who have to clean it up.

What a company wanting to bring garbage in here is looking at

is bringing the garbage in, setting up and selling us the electricity so that

we, the consumers of this Province, will pay for the cleanup of the mess they

caused with the garbage in the first place. When they sell us their electricity

we will be paying for the cleanup. My suggestion is clean it up now and get it

in good shape, then, if there are other activities to be considered for that

site, we can consider them. But, Mr. Speaker, don't ask me to clean up your

mess, the mess you made, and don't ask the future taxpayers of our Province to

do it. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I

want, also to welcome the students from St. Kevin's and congratulate them on

their initiative in bringing forward their concerns in relation to the

environment, to my colleague from Kilbride.

I want to take this opportunity to bring a serious matter to

the attention of the minister. I realize I could do it perhaps elsewhere but I

would like to do it here because I think it needs to be brought forward and it

is appropriate under the occupational health and safety legislation that we are

dealing with here today.

I am talking about an issue that I am personally involved

with. Members opposite are aware of any conflict I might have, that I receive a

small retainer for marketing from a company that is involved in repair of trucks

and other vehicles. The issue I want to relate to is a generic issue. It doesn't

deal specifically with the company that I am associated with. But I will use

them as an example.

The problem I am talking about relates to the regulations

that are in place, dealing with particularly spray-painting of vehicles. They

are quite specific, as the paints that are used on vehicles create toxic fumes.

These are toxic chemicals. They have to be handled quite carefully. The company

I am involved with, when they put their building in place, put in place a

spray-painting facility, a paint booth, that is state-of-the-art. It was

designed and built, by the way, by a local Newfoundland company, Heating

Products Limited. It is a new piece of technology called Ener-Round. It was

designed to meet all of the requirements of the minister's department, all of

the regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act dealing with

spray-painting and use of those types of chemicals, and the emissions into the

air.

There are two concerns: One is the health and safety of the

employees, the people in that building and the second is the emissions from that

building because everything has to be blown out of the building.

The Ener-Round system cost the company that I am involved

with somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000; it is a state-of-the-art facility,

sixty-four feet long. You can put a forty-eight foot tractor trailer in there

and have lots of room to work on it. It is by far the best facility in the

Province but there are others that are similar.

The problem we have is that many corporations, and this

government, in fact, in having spray-painting work done, are not particular

whether the company that is doing the painting meets the requirements of the

Occupational Health and Safety Act or not. In fact, there are many facilities

operating in this Province, in fact, let me correct myself, the majority of

those doing business in this Province do not meet the regulations, and those

regulations are not being enforced - not being enforced.

Now, I have two concerns: Obviously, I am concerned, because

if one company invests $150,000 or $200,000 to meet the regulations, it is very

difficult to compete with a company that is painting a truck or a bus or a

snowplough out in an old barn or in an old shed or outdoors! Now, the other

concern there is the quality. There is a quality problem and there is a safety

problem. The quality problem is that if you are painting outdoors or in a

facility that does not have proper equipment, then you don't have a dust-free

environment.

The facility that is at East Coast Fleet Repair draws air in

through filters; the air is heated to 18 to 21 degrees - I say this for the

benefit of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if he is

interested - 18 to 21 degrees, a temperature at which paint should be applied to

a vehicle. There are very few facilities in this Province that have the proper

equipment to meet that. We happen to have a 10,000 BTU propane furnace dedicated

only to that paint booth to ensure the quality, so it is state-of-the-art work

that is being done in that facility, but that is not the question here.

What I am saying is that others can go into an old barn or an

old shed, really, in many cases without a permit, out in your backyard, many

people are painting cars quite cheaply, many are painting buses and trucks and

snowploughs, competing with legitimate businesses, competing with the Hickman

Motors and the Avalon Fords and all the rest of the good commercial operations

that have good facilities -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - and some smaller ones, yes. There are some

smaller ones that do have some good facilities. And they are out in a barn and

they are spray-painting. They don't have the temperature control, they don't

have the dust control - well, that is a quality problem, the minister probably

isn't concerned about that - the client beware. But are the employees protected?

Do they have proper breathing apparatus? The Ener-Round system that we have in

place has a complete built-in system that constantly changes the air so that the

guys can go around with suits on; they also go around with self-contained

breathing apparatus.

Generally, what you will find is that they go around with a

filter over the mouth, one of these little cloth filters that you might use if

you are doing a bit of woodwork out in your backyard, but that is what most of

the people have to protect themselves. Now, there are many people in this

Province who are constantly breathing in toxic fumes and whose life span will be

decreased substantially, I say to the minister, so that is why the regulations

are in place.

The second aspect is, those fumes that are in that spray

booth have to be taken out. You are drawing in air, you filter it and you heat

it for quality purposes, you protect your employees inside with proper breathing

apparatus, but then you must exhaust those fumes, and in our system the fumes

are exhausted through a complete filter system, so that there are no toxic

chemicals escaping into the atmosphere. Now, the guy who is out in his shed or a

barn or outdoors in the summertime spraying, is letting all of that go to the

atmosphere. I am quite serious in what I am saying and I am pleased to see that

the minister is paying attention. I am sure he will look into this.

Now, we, and others, are trying to compete with people who

have not put any investment in there; do not bear the additional cost of having

proper breathing apparatus, changing filters and filter packs for the breathing

apparatus and so forth, they do not have the compressed air being fed there,

others are out without any of those expenses, being aided and abetted by this

government and by other large corporations in this Province who profess to be

environmentally sensitive and there are several of them; and I could name them

but I won't - I don't think it is appropriate to attack a company here. But

there are many companies, and some of the larger companies profess to be great

corporate citizens. They have environmental policies, health and safety

policies, and go around and when they park their truck they have their little

pink markers around their truck for safety reasons and all the rest of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who (inaudible) to you?

MR. WINDSOR: I won't name them. There are several who do

that but I am not being specific. And you see that every day. But when they go

to get their equipment painted, they will call a tender or they will invite

proposals, not quite as carefully done as our Public Tender Act and it is not

open to the public, by the way, with no specifications. They do not specify

quality, first of all, in most cases; there are a couple that have, and most of

the ones that are, because we are giving them standard specifications that are

used and that should be applied. Companies are starting to adopt them and bring

them into their own specifications. But there are still most large companies and

almost all small companies, who simply ask: Who will paint my vehicle for me,

and what will you charge? They do not specify the kind of paints and all the

rest of it or the conditions, the temperatures that it has to be done under, the

standard of sandpapers that have to be used, the primers that have to be put on

it, they don't really understand what they are getting into, in most cases. But

they don't specify that the work must be done in a facility that meets

occupational health and safety standards. They are quite prepared to have their

vehicle done in a shed. So, there is the problem. And the government is doing

the same thing.

We have done some work for government, the Department of

Transportation, but we have done it generally at a loss. We cannot compete with

the prices of - the ministers don't have cars anymore, but one of the government

vehicles was to be painted. It will probably go to one of these little small

shops that can do it for two-thirds of what we could bid, because they don't

have the overhead. They have not made the investment into these facilities and

they are not doing the quality. I wish the Minister of Transportation were over

there - he is, but he is not listening. They are not getting the quality work. I

have talked to the boys at the White Hills and they say that the work we have

sent back to them is state-of-the-art. There was one vehicle that we did for the

Lieutenant-Governor. I think it was painted three times. Finally, it was sent

into us, we scuffed it right down, painted it and it looks like new. We do top

quality work. But I am not here to argue the quality of work -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am here to talk about the health and

safety aspects of it. Now, here is a government that has regulations and are

violating them themselves, by government departments going out and putting work

into facilities that do not meet government standards. That is all I wanted to

say, that is really the point that I want to make to the minister. I had to take

some time to explain some of the things that are involved. The average person

says, I will go and paint my car. He thinks he can take a brush and paint it. It

is not that simple, there are serious matters of quality that impact but that is

not the minister's concern. The Minister of Transportation may be concerned but

the Minister of Labour would not be. But there is a concern for the health and

safety of the workers and there is a concern for what is being exhausted into

the environment.

The minister's officials will come in - I can show you

half-a-dozen places in Donovans Industrial Park, people in the trucking business

who, if they want a little bit of paint, will spray it themselves as long as

they can get away with it. And the minister's inspector will come in and say:

You can't do that, you are not licensed, you don't have a proper facility, you

don't have proper safety measures, and, I mean, there are a number of things. We

have explosion-proof light fixtures, for example, in the facility that we have.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are supposed to.

MR. WINDSOR: You are supposed to and we were made to put

them in. Not we, I say 'we' - I wasn't associated with it - I don't own any part

of the company and I wasn't associated with it when it was built. It was funded

partly by Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation and ACOA. So, it is

a very good facility but, you know, the company was forced to make that

expenditure of $150,000 -$200,000 to put in those kinds of filtering facilities,

to put in explosion proof fixtures, to have metal containers for storing paints,

to have a separate paint room with proper ventilation for the mixing of the

paints. All of these matters are very serious matters, and those regulations are

in place for good and valid reason. I support them fully and they should be

enforced. What I am saying is that they are not being enforced.

The minister's inspector will go in to one of the companies

in Donovans that is spraying a couple of their own trucks, and he will say: You

cannot do that. Then he will shut them down. He will go away, and two weeks

later they are spraying again. There is no great fine imposed on them. There is

nothing to ensure that it does not continue again.

All I am saying to the minister is that I think the

regulations are good and valid. They are here for the right reasons, but if they

are not enforced they are meaningless. If they are not enforced, they are

meaningless; and it really bothers me that government is breaking their own

regulations.

They will not paint themselves, because they do not have

proper facilities. Well they do now. They have a small facility at the White

Hills. It is not quite up to their own - it does not quite meet the regulations.

They have one in Clarenville which is very good. There was one built in the new

highways depot in Clarenville - a paint booth - which is a very good booth, I am

told. I have not seen it but I am led to believe that it is. There is probably

one in the new depot in Deer Lake which probably meets the regulations, and you

are probably doing your own work there, but most of the work is being farmed

out, and is going out to small operators who will paint your car or your pickup

at a very, very, low rate, and he is breaking every regulation in the book while

he is doing it - in most cases. As my friend from Placentia pointed out, there

are some small operators who also meet the regulations, but they are few and far

between.

I ask the minister to have a look at that - to talk to his

officials and review it. I suspect the minister, in order to fully enforce it,

may need to bring in an amendment to the act. I urge him to do it quickly.

I think the act is a little weak. It does not provide enough

power to the minister to take action. There are standards that are there, but

there are no penalties. There is not a lot that the minister can do, but

government can certainly cease giving business to companies who do not meet

government regulations. That is the very minimum, and that is the first step. So

I ask the minister seriously to take that under advisement.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now he

closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just probably take the points in reverse order from

the members who did express an interest and take the time to speak to the Bill.

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl, I take the point. I think

probably the best thing - because there were two concerns there that are serious

- what I normally do in an instance like that is to get a copy of the Hansard,

so that they will know exactly the comments that you made, provided to the

officials, and ask them to meet with me and go through that in some detail.

Also, the hon. member pointed out very clearly that there are

two concerns in that instance that he raised under this particular Bill. The

toxic fumes and the impact on the individual working there, which is the

occupational health and safety concern, and also a concern that the Minister of

Environment would have when you talk about the ejection of those fumes then into

the environment generally and the possibility of having a negative impact on the

local environment and the surroundings, and people in the area generally.

Both concerns will be passed on and I will give an

undertaking to the hon. member to have the extracts from Hansard provided to the

officials in both departments for further discussion and deliberation because

any time anyone brings it to our attention about our regulations either not

being enforced or being questionable as to whether or not they do the job they

are designed to do, and get the work done that everybody agrees needs to be

done, from a protective point of view, then we certainly take that very

seriously.

The hon. Member for Kilbride, I must commend him on doing a

great job of staying in order in speaking to the Bill. How you can speak for

twenty-nine-and-a-half minutes on garbage, and thirty seconds on occupational

health and safety and stay in order - he managed to do a good job of it.

I noted six or seven times when he referenced something about

safety and so on every now and then, just to make sure that Mr. Speaker did not

rule him out of order, about falling in the harbour and it not being safe to get

out, and those kind of things; but it is clear to me - and it is unfortunate

that the teachers and the students have left - because it was clear to me that

the man is not an educator, of course he has never professed to be, because of

the prejudice and the bias with which he presented one side of an argument. I

would know that the teachers in the gallery and the students certainly would

expect that any time they were going to make a decision, I expect fully this is

what happened before they presented their petition - that they had heard both

sides of the story and, based on information, with an open mind, had decided to

present the petition saying they were against it, because certainly, the hon.

Member for Kilbride did not present anything like two sides of a story, he was

very closed minded, a mind completely made up on one side of the story and

stressed certain prejudiced views by stating mistruths, Mr. Speaker, as if they

were true and apologizing to nobody for it. I find that unfortunate but I guess

nobody here is overly offended by it in terms of the Legislature, because we

understand that the gentleman said he is leaving politics. Thank God for that,

because that kind of representation of one side of the issue only with mistruths

being presented as if they were facts, does not add to the reputation of

ourselves as political leaders in the Province.

A couple of points, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments

from the hon. Member for St. John's East. We did indeed think in terms of the

range of fines, which was the largest part of his particular offering to the

debate and the fact of comparing these fines to environmental fines in others.

It is very easy to point out that we have some major, large employers like FPI,

IOC, the paper companies and so on, but once you get past the list of five or

six or ten, most of the companies operating in Newfoundland are much smaller

than that and while $50,000, some people may argue is not a great impediment or

a great detriment to the Iron Ore Company of Canada or to Abitibi-Price or to

FPI and so on, it is still significant, but for the vast majority of the over

7,000 employers and companies in the Province, a $50,000 fine would probably put

them out of business, Mr. Speaker, and it was that balance that we were trying

to achieve in finding a level of fine that would be a very strong deterrent but

would not serve to close the company and put people out of employment and I will

deal with the statistics.

It seems that the concern for that comes from the point of

view that there is a view being proposed that maybe we are not doing enough

about trying to prevent the accidents in the first place, and I would like to

read a couple of statistics into the record, just for the sake of those people

who, at some point in the future, might be for some historical reasons searching

through Hansard to find out what was said in this debate, because I am not sure

it will get a lot of public air play immediately today, but to leave a view that

the fine should be bigger because we are not doing enough to encourage companies

to prevent accidents.

A couple of things in the reality: decrease in lost time

accidents, Mr. Speaker, 1992 over 1991. In half-a-year, these are the figures to

the end of July, 1992 versus 1991, there has been a decrease in lost time

accidents of 18.27 per cent, and again, in trying to be truthful with the people

and making sure we are not putting mistruths into the debate, we have recognized

that 2.93 per cent of that decrease could be attributed to a decrease in

employment; 7.45 per cent of it can be attributed to a decrease in the fishery

due to the moratorium, but in fact, 7.89 per cent of it or almost 8 per cent of

the decrease is attributable to actions of the companies and the employees in

making sure that they have safer workplaces and that the number of accidents are

decreasing, and that is in the first half of this year compared to last year.

The numbers for the previous year were again down by a range

of 7 per cent or so, so for two years in a row companies and employees have made

every effort to make sure that the number of lost time accidents have decreased

at the work sites in Newfoundland. Just to point out again, Mr. Speaker, for the

record, for someone who might read Hansard in fifty years time and wonder what

was going on here: in 1990 for the first half of the year, there were 5,945 lost

time accidents in the work sites of Newfoundland and Labrador. In the first half

of 1991, a year later, that was down to 5,368. So that there had been efforts

made to decrease it, and in the first half of this year, 1992 it is down again

to 4,386, almost a 1,000 decrease in half-a-year which equates to the numbers

that show there is an 18 per cent decrease in the number of accidents, 8 per

cent of which can be attributed to the efforts of the employers and the

employees and 2.93 per cent of which can be attributed to a decrease in

employment.

So, Mr. Speaker, somebody has been making great efforts and

we certainly commend all those employers and employees who have made the effort

over the last couple of years. Just a couple of comments before I move second

reading, Mr.Speaker, with respect to the Opposition critic, the hon. Member for

Fogo. I agree fully, his point was clear that we should again be stressing our

education program, that we should be doing a better job of inspecting and

enforcing and I agree, and nobody on this side of the House will disagree with

those comments.

We fully appreciate and understand that the real answer here

is through that continued effort, education and compliance, voluntary compliance

is the key. We have started to make some inroads in that area and we will

continue to see where we can add more inspectors and more education officers as

soon as possible. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that all members who participated in

the debate did agree that the move to go from a $5,000 maximum fine to $50,000

is a move in the right direction and it will help in some way in concert with a

lot of other moves to make sure that we have safer workplaces for the people

employed in our Province and with that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of

the Bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health

And Safety Act" read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 53).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order 34, Bill No. 63.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 34, Bill No. 63.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief in my

introductory remarks in preparing to move second reading of Bill No. 63, "An Act

comments made in the debate so I can answer those further when I make some

closing comments or at the committee stage if necessary. The explanatory notes,

Mr. Speaker, point out quite clearly what is intended to be accomplished by

these amendments. In Clause 1, we are clarifying that when you have an apartment

type building, the previous regulation and description in the Act was not clear

as to exactly which parts were to be accessible in the definition of

accessible are the common and public areas of those apartment type buildings. If

Bill, it points out that in the case of apartment type buildings it is the

entrances, including the entrance to each individual residential unit.

The confusion before was that people were not sure whether or

not that meant every entrance inside of every apartment. It is spelled out

clearly now that the Act states that you must be able to get into the apartment

building, plus you must be able to get into every apartment in the apartment

building. Now, if there is a person leasing one of the apartments and they do

bedroom and so on then that is entirely within the Act. The Act also, I might

point out, Mr. Speaker, although it is not addressed here because it did not

need to be changed here in this Bill, provides that a certain number of the

apartments in every apartment building must be fully accessible to people with

disabilities and that inside those apartments everything would have to abide by

So, it says for the building itself, a public apartment

building, the entrance, the walkways, the parking lot and so on, everything

leading to the apartment building must be accessible, plus the entrance to every

single apartment and room within the building must be accessible. Once you get

inside those individual apartments, other than the ones that are designated

under the Act to be the one in ten, or the one in twelve that must be available

to people with disabilities, then the interiors of those apartments do not have

to be fully accessible under the Act. So, that is the distinction that is made

in the first Clause, in the first change, Mr. Speaker, because there was some

confusion as to that in the previous Act and that is clarified with this

amendment.

Clause 2, Mr. Speaker, provides that issuance of an occupancy

permit for a new building shall not be granted until two things have happened;

that the design of the building has been registered with the department, and

there have been some convictions on that basis just recently when some people go

ahead and do their design changes, do not register with the department and than

they have to check and see whether they comply with the Act. Secondly, to make

sure that we do not find themselves playing catch up again that the permit to

occupy will not be issued until the final inspection of the building has been

completed. The previous practice had been to go in and to issue a directive

saying: well, okay, if you do this, this, and this and you make an undertaking

to do so, we will give you the permit to occupy.