June 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 48

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before moving on with the routine business, I would like to

bring to hon. members' attention the presence in the Speaker's Gallery today, of

Mr. John Nolan, a former member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this

opportunity to remind hon. members that National Access Awareness Week began

yesterday, June 1 and will continue until this Sunday, June 7. The intent of

recognizing this week is to create increased awareness that all persons have the

fundamental right of equal access to transportation, housing, education,

recreation and employment. This year's theme "Local Community Action" encourages

attempts to recognize the right to access at the local level.

As most hon. members are aware, a breakfast is scheduled for

tomorrow at the Hotel Newfoundland, where members of the House of Assembly will

be given an opportunity to meet with individual members of the disabled

community and others who promote access awareness. I feel that each member

should make an extra effort to attend this gathering in order to better

understand and appreciate the types of challenges certain individuals have to

deal with on a daily basis.

In promoting National Access Awareness Week, the department

Buildings Inspection Department of the City of Mount Pearl. The same seminar

will be presented to the Buildings Inspection Department of the City of St.

John's on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, as members are well aware, the department has

couple of years and also intends to increase these efforts in the future. The

to the adoption of these regulations, the department will be conducting

Province-wide seminars in an effort to increase the awareness of the new

regulations and their requirements. These regulations will be followed by

ongoing public awareness efforts in the form of educational pamphlets which will

identify areas of the regulations which require increased public awareness and

education.

The department will soon be releasing an educational pamphlet

identifying accessible facilities for the disabled along the Trans-Canada

Highway. This initiative will be expanded over the next year to identify such

facilities along other major thoroughfares throughout the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Further to this, the department will continue to lobby the

owners of those facilities which are currently exempt from the regulations in an

attempt to obtain voluntary compliance, while strictly enforcing the

requirements for those who have a legislative responsibility to provide for

Other departments, Mr. Speaker, most notably, the Department

of Education, are continuing their efforts to remove barriers and ensure that

people with visible and non-visible disabilities have increasing access to

programs and services. While National Access Awareness Week is intended to focus

our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for providing me with an

advanced copy. We, too, on this side of the House want to support the minister

in his Statement on National Access Awareness Week because we recognize the

importance that many of these people can play in our society. I notice, Mr.

Speaker, that the minister signalled out areas of access to transportation,

housing, education, recreation and employment. And it is well for the minister

to recognize these areas but what would be more important is to have some really

concrete action so that it really becomes accessible to them. For example, all

along the Trans-Canada, I am told by an handicapped person, I think there is

only one restaurant that is adequately equipped to handle wheelchair patients. I

understand the C.N. bus for example, has only one bus that is able to take care

of the handicapped and that bus is frequently broken down; so, Mr. Speaker,

there is certainly a need in this Province to have buildings and facilities that

are used by the public, accessible to all.

The minister indicated that tomorrow there is going to be a

breakfast scheduled. A number of our members on both sides of the House attended

one similar to that last year at, I think the Salvation Army place down in the

east end, and I know a number from our caucus will be attending tomorrow.

Indeed, it was an enjoyable learning experience as members sat with individuals

with varying disabilities, and we learned what these were and had a greater

appreciation of their problems, Mr. Speaker, so we intend to attend tomorrow.

The minister also makes some mention in his Statement of the

for a number of years and I urge the minister, if it is possible, to speed up

this process, because this is taking a long time. It has been two or three years

now in the making and it would be good if the minister could speed it up because

there are thousands of people out there waiting. I also notice he is talking

about a pamphlet to identify facilities for the disabled along the Trans-Canada.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could take the lead on this and also

erect road signs indicating to people who have disabilities that services are

available in this particular institution for people who are in wheelchairs. A

pamphlet is just not adequate, Mr. Speaker, because these people have difficulty

getting into the tourist chalets, especially if they are not of a provincial

standard, so maybe, as a little road sign we could also put the little

wheelchair there to indicate that particular facility is accessible to

wheelchair patients.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on March -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sorry -

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before you

call Oral Questions. If the time has passed then -

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

MR. HARRIS: I was on my feet for a point of order, when

you called Oral Questions, but if we have already passed -

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if the House will allow, because I do

not want this to come out of Question Period, if the House will allow the Chair

to revert -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was on my feet to ask leave of the House to address the

Ministerial Statement regarding National Access Awareness Week and the needs of

the disabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to address

the Ministerial Statement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make it clear that the remarks of the

minister concerning the importance of National Access Awareness Week were

supported not only by the Official Opposition but by the New Democratic Party.

I want to join with the minister in assuring the House and

all members of the public that we are very concerned that the access to

transportation, housing, education, recreation and employment ought to be as a

matter of right, and not only ought to be protected as it is in some of these

areas, except for transportation and recreation in The Human Rights Code, but

that also the regulations and the provision of government services, public

buildings, whether they be privately or publicly-owned, ought to have total

access available to people, regardless of their abilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on March 11, according to

Hansard, the Minister of Mines and Energy, in response to a question or some

questions I was asking him then about Hibernia said, and I quote, on Page 101: I

would be very concerned if by June no new partners are found.

Now, the question was obvious. He knows what the question

was. I was asking about replacement of the partners for Gulf. Well, we are now

into June, so I would like to take the opportunity to ask the minister how he

feels today about it. Is there any reason for us, or more or less reason for us,

to feel confident that new partners will be found and that that project will

proceed?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the process is continuing that has been ongoing

now since February. I don't mind reporting that officials from our government

are meeting with officials from the federal side and with the companies on the

mainland this week. I am still hopeful that there will be a positive resolution;

however, there are no guarantees. We are going to have to wait awhile yet to

see.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to express

optimism about the project, but it is getting rather late now, so I think it

would be appropriate for him to be a bit more forthcoming to the people of the

Province.

In view of the fact that the Minister of Development down in

Houston some time ago had no trouble talking to the delegates at the Houston

conference down there, the off shore oil conference, and kind of implied that

there was something positive happening. At least the minister should be able to

be straightforward with the people. So I ask him again, is there anything that

has him less concerned today than he was last March? I will put it that way.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have personally tried to

avoid using the word optimism. I don't want to elevate it, or over elevate, or

depress the situation. I want to be realistic about the situation, and I give a

lot of credit to the companies and all others who have been involved in the

search for new partners since February 14. As I said, that process is

continuing. I am pleased with what I have seen from the process, and I don't

think it does the process any good to be carrying on in saying more about it at

this time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we were prepared to go along with

that for the last number of months, but I think it is fair now for the people in

the Province to expect some straight answers from this government as to what is

going on, if it knows anything about what is going on. Can the minister tell the

House: do the Hibernia partners have any firm offers that he knows of to

purchase this 25 per cent share that was owned by Gulf formerly? How many

proposals are being considered? And can the minister indicated if the proposals

involve the purchase of all or just part of the Gulf shares?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do know what is going on. We

do know what is going on, as do the federal partners on the government side in

this, and as I said earlier, I don't think it is in the interest of the project

for us to be debating the issue in the House. We are all hopeful that there will

be a successful conclusion. There are no guarantees on that. As the process

continues I think it is in the best interest of the process to allow it to

continue in the way it is.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Mines and

Energy tell us if Petro Canada is still trying to sell some of its ownership

share in Hibernia? Is the search for new owners simply to replace the Gulf

shares, or does it also involve efforts to sell a portion of Petro Canada

shares? Does he know that, and will he tell the people?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the search is to find some one,

two, three, or whatever the number might be of potential new partners to take up

the Gulf share, not the part that Petro Canada might be interested in selling.

That is taking a secondary position in Petro Canada itself.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we all know about the public

comments that were made by Mr. Hopper, subsequent comments made by the Premier

and by the minister, and certainly June, as I indicated in the minister's own

response to a question I asked two months ago in March, was seen as a very

critical time. The question that has to be asked, and is on the minds of people,

is, what is going to happen to the project out there for this summer? Are the

partners expected to make some decision some time this month as to whether they

are going to proceed? Because Gulf pulls out in October, but the partners may

decide much earlier than that they are not going to proceed, as the minister

would know. Is this a critical time for that kind of a decision making process?

If it is, does the minister expect some decision, at least some announcement, so

that the people of the Province can be informed as to what is going on with the

future of that project some time this month?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is in the

interests of the project, the Province or the country to be debating it in this

way, in the House at this time. I think that I have been as frank, forthright

and forthcoming as I can and should be. I will continue to inform the people of

this Province at appropriate times when it is appropriate to do so. When there

is an appropriate resolution, and I hope a positive one, it will be done in the

right way with all partners participating - ourselves, the federal government

and the private partners.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask one final

supplementary because it is obvious the minister is not going to tell anybody

anything. Since this is peak construction time in this Province, and since we

have such a tremendous unemployment problem, can the minister give us some

indication whether or not activities on the project at Bull Arm - on the site at

Bull Arm, for example - will remain at least at the level that it is now, which

is I think 50 per cent level of what it was before? Will it remain at least at

that level for the rest of this summer? Can he tell us that?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make commitments as to

exactly what the project level is going to be as components get completed. The

last report that I had on employment relative to the project had over 500 people

still working at Bull Arm, almost 500 working in the St. John's area. Basically,

over 1,000 working in Newfoundland on the project, and the expenditure still

being in the order of about $1.5 million per day. That is continuing, but

obviously some components are getting completed at the Bull Arm site. As

components get completed, until new projects start, there may be some reductions

over time.

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

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

responsible for Works, Services and Transportation. Several weeks ago, in

response to a question from me regarding winter maintenance on the

Trans-Labrador Highway, he suggested that there were ongoing talks with CF(L)Co

and his department with regard to who is going to cover the cost of that

maintenance. I wonder if he can update me on what is occurring in those talks?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to winter maintenance on the Trans-Labrador

Highway, as the hon. gentleman is aware a sum of money has been allocated for

maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway, being $400,000. This sum of money is

being made available to the Town of Happy Valley - Goose Bay for maintenance on

the Trans-Labrador Highway. That is the amount of money that has been allocated

for maintenance, and the town has not advised me as to how they intend to expend

those funds for maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Maybe the minister was listening to somebody

else other than the person who was asking the question, Mr. Speaker.

My question was: What is the status of the talks between his

department and CF(L)Co with regard to winter maintenance on the Trans-Labrador

Highway, from Churchill Falls to Labrador West?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: CF(L)Co has provided the department with some

information, Mr. Speaker, and, as of yet, I have not communicated my position

directly back to CF(L)Co in writing.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Last

Thursday, May 28, the Minister of Fisheries told the House that his department

had contacted the Fishermens' Committee in Long Harbour and was told that

incidents of red herring reported in the area were not uncommon. He went on to

say that it was nothing out of the ordinary and nothing to be concerned about.

He said it happens just about every year. He went on to state that only three

herring out of 1,000 pounds or so were red herring.

Given the statement this morning by the Chairman of the

Fishermens' Committee from Long Harbour, I want to ask the acting minister,

whoever it is: Does he now support the statement of the Minister of Fisheries of

last Thursday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I heard the radio interview

too this morning. I also heard the radio interviewer, Mr. Miller, attribute to

the minister the statement of the Chairman of the Fishermens' Committee. The

minister made no such statement. He didn't refer to the Chairman of the

Fishermens' Committee. So, I don't where that came from.

The minister stated quite clearly that he had his officials

check the matter for him and they advised him of these circumstances. But he was

quite clear too that he couldn't confirm this. He didn't mean to suggest that

this didn't indicate that there was a major problem. There may well be a major

problem. But in case, in the three years that they have been out of office, the

hon. members opposite have forgotten, the legislative, governmental, and

administrative jurisdiction over matters beyond the high-water mark rests with

the federal government. In particular, jurisdiction on environmental matters -

that is the reality.

Now the minister has made this very clear. He is not ranting

and raving about how slow the federal government is in dealing with this. They

realise they need a few days to deal with it. That time has been given. No

doubt, Mr. Speaker, when that information is provided the minister will do

whatever is necessary or whatever is appropriate for the provincial government

to do to deal with any difficulty or any difficult situation that arises. I have

no doubt that the minister will attend to it.

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

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

the Premier: nice try. But the phosphorus and the slag is certainly above the

high-water mark, and what is going on below that, well, that is a matter of

debate.

I want to say to the Premier that it is obvious - why is the

Minister of Fisheries so ill informed about this matter? It is a serious matter.

It has not happened now for years out there. It is a rich fishing grounds, just

about wiped out one time before. So why would the government be so lackadaisical

about this matter? Can the Premier answer that? Really, who is monitoring what

is happening at Long Harbour and the affect it is having on that fishing grounds

out there that could be devastated? Who is monitoring on behalf of the Province,

I ask the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the slag and phosphorous has

been above the ground since 1972, and for all seventeen years that the hon.

members opposite had responsibility for monitoring the activity. Now the plant

closed - the closure of the plant was announced, at least, well before we took

responsibility for government in May of 1989. It was announced in the fall of

1988, and in fact the plant closed in August of 1989.

Now since that time the Department of the Environment has

been trying to provide for an orderly cleanup of that site. It is a major task.

It is severely polluted. Because whoever was responsible for it prior to the

closure of the plant did not do proper monitoring, or they were not aware of it,

or for whatever reason, there is very substantiable pollution in Long Harbour

that is going to take a major effort to clean up. So let's recognise that.

Now it may well be, Mr. Speaker, that there is some

continuing leaching out of the slag heap or out of the settlement ponds, that

there is some leaching into Placentia Bay. We have to stay on top of that.

Whatever this government, whatever is within the jurisdiction of this

government, we must do without any delay or without any impairment, to prevent

any further pollution of Placentia Bay. It is difficult to imagine that the

occurrence of these red herring in Placentia Bay at this time does not have some

connection with it, bearing in mind that that was the connection when it

occurred before. So it is difficult to imagine, although you have to wait until

you are certain. The initial reaction is probably, most likely it has some

connection with the phosphorous plant at Long Harbour. So we have to find

whatever is the cause of that and have it dealt with.

In the meantime, we just cannot assume the federal government

jurisdiction to monitor what goes into Placentia Bay. That is a federal

responsibility - they and they alone have the jurisdiction to do that. So maybe

the members opposites might turn some of their heavy political guns on their

friends in Ottawa and help them put a little more pressure on what is happening

out there.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Premier: nice try again, Mr.

Speaker. We all know that the Long Harbour phosphorous plant was a proud

initiative of the former Liberal administration. It would not surprise me that

the Premier was a member of that. So the Premier can squirm about the last

seventeen years or so all he wants, but there is a problem out there and we have

all been shocked to find out that toxic effluents are still being pumped into

the ocean from Long Harbour.

Now the federal government is not pumping it into the ocean.

They may be responsible below the high-water mark, I say to the Premier, but it

is still being pumped out there. So I ask the Premier again: isn't the

Department of Environment and Lands or the Department of Fisheries monitoring

this situation to see what is happening in Long Harbour? It is frightening what

is happening there. You just can't slough it off and say: it's a federal

government responsibility, or below the high-water line, or whatever he is

referring to. Take some responsibility and monitor it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Get this accurate. To the best of my

knowledge, nothing of the kind is being pumped into Placentia bay. There may be

some leaching from the slag heaps that have been built up there over the last

twenty years or so. There may be some leaching from the settlement ponds, but

nothing is being pumped into Placentia Bay, and for the hon. member to use that

language is grossly irresponsible, to say the least.

Now I say again, this government cannot walk in, push the

federal government aside and take over responsibility for monitoring the impact

in the waters in Placentia Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It does not matter where it occurs. If it

comes from the land into the water it is still a federal jurisdiction, and they

and they alone have jurisdiction in relation to the matter.

Now they are doing it. They are supposed to be doing it. They

have assured the minister and others that they have been doing it. I heard

interviews on the radio, too, with officials of the department that has given

assurance that they have been doing it. Well we have to see and check, and if

they have not, we may have to find some means of making sure that we will do it.

But there is no sense in both expending taxpayers dollars to do the same thing.

It is normally a federal responsibility. Let the federal government do it.

If they are failing in their duty, then we may well have to

find some alternative means to ensure that in the future protection is provided.

But in the meantime I am told by the minister, and told by others, that DFO are

having the matter assessed on an urgent basis and they should, within a day or

so, know what the real cause is.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me ask the Premier a final

supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the dumping of toxic waste into the bay part of the

cleanup process which his provincial government has approved for Long Harbour? I

want him to answer that, and probably he can answer something else for me. Has

the Minister of Fisheries or the Department of Fisheries made representation or

expressed concern about the proposed incinerator project for Long Harbour, and

the impact that they may have on those rich fishing grounds? Can he answer two

of those?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which department?

MR. MATTHEWS: The Department of Fisheries. Has the

minister or the department expressed concern to you, as Premier, and your other

Cabinet colleagues, about the possible impact that this incinerator project for

Long Harbour may have on the fishing grounds that are already being polluted now

by what was there before?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The first question, or part of the

question, Mr. Speaker, is really too silly to give much credence to. To suggest

that the government is approving the disposal of toxic waste into Placentia Bay

is utter madness. I do not even think the former government would have done

that. Maybe they would have, but I do not think even they would have been so

foolish as to do that. Maybe I am giving them too much credit, but it really

does not deserve an answer.

The second part of the question is: What advice, or what

opinion any minister, no matter who it is - what opinion or what advice any

minister gives the government is the advice of the government and is not the

advice of the individual minister.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier in regard to the Long Harbour

proposal for the importation and incineration of garbage from the Eastern

Seaboard.

I want to ask the Premier whether or not he is satisfied that

the people of this Province have already directed their minds to this project

and have decided that they do not want to have Newfoundland, whether it be Long

Harbour or any other place, be the garbage dump of North America; and regardless

of the technical merit or otherwise of the incineration project, is the Premier

not prepared to take some leadership and provide some leadership on this and say

no now so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not be concerned for

the next couple of years about whether or not this is going to happen, and

destroy the future of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are several questions and several

misstatements in that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, usually. There frequently are

misstatements from the opposite side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know, but I would like to find

out one of these days. I keep trying. At least I keep trying. My problem is with

people who do not care whether they are or not. That is my real concern.

I have nearly lost the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I have nearly lost the gist of the

question, but just let me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Just let me get back to it.

The first question, as I recall was: Is the government

satisfied that the people of this Province have already spoken, and decided? No,

I am not satisfied. Undoubtedly a significant number of people have expressed a

view. Even the members opposite found a cause, a parade, and said, let's go find

a parade and we can appear as though we are leading the parade, and that is

exactly what they did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I know that. That is a display of

leadership; but no, I am not satisfied, because the process that enables the

judgement hasn't taken place. You see, Mr. Speaker, here I give the former

government credit. They brought in a piece of legislation for environmental

assessment and management and basically it is pretty sound. It requires, not

only requires, it mandates that the minister shall do an assessment of a variety

of kinds of proposals or resource developments that could have environmental

impact. The minister has no alternative but to do an assessment. As a matter of

fact, if the minister refused he could well be on the receiving end of a court

order directing the minister to do so. So that process is there.

When that is done, I am satisfied and my own view is the

people of this Province will probably speak loudly against the proposal, but you

can't deprive them of the opportunity to have the full facts so that they can

make a sound and sensible judgement on the matter. Nobody that I know of,

nobody, not a single person on this side of the House, wants Newfoundland to be

the garbage dump of North America, anymore than the member opposite does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: No, we won't have anything to do with it.

But we are not so blindly prejudiced, Mr. Speaker, as to say: If we see a

parade, we will run out and pretend that we are leading it, no matter what the

consequences are, and make the decision. We don't operate in that way. We comply

with the law, albeit a law that the members opposite brought in, that requires

that process to take place.

The member understands the fundamental principles of natural

justice. He is quite familiar with that phrase, I am sure, that entitles people

to be heard. It is a simple proposal. Then, when it is clearly indicated that

the proposal is unacceptable from a physical, a psychological, an economic, or

any other kind of environmental terms, if it is unacceptable, you will find this

government saying no very, very quickly. We are not so stupid as to just blindly

say no to everything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows that his government can make a law to ban

the importation of garbage. So he can't hide behind legislation. The estimates,

Mr. Speaker, are that even in household garbage there are fifteen pounds of

toxic chemicals produced per year. Why can't the government say now that whether

it is thirty tons or 300,000 tons that these proponents intend to bring into

this Province, that this Province will not accept imported garbage, whether it

be from the United States of America or from the Mainland or other places. Why

not say no now? We don't need what the Minister of Environment called a

horrendous amount of public input. Why don't we have some leadership and some

decision making? Why put everybody through it? Why let the federal government

spend millions more of public money to dangle this prospect before the

Newfoundland people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what the federal government

does or how it spends it's money is of concern to the Province, but we have no

control over it. I only wish we did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: It won't be long now.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is not a proposal of the

provincial government. The government is not proposing such a facility. We do

not propose that facility at Long Harbour. The investors who want to propose it

for consideration have suggested they are going to put forward a proposal. They

may not. None have been put forward yet. None have been put forward to the best

of my knowledge. I don't know of any minister of government who has received any

such proposal. I know it is under consideration. I am aware that they are

considering making such a proposal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the normal

MR. SIMMS: Squirm. Squirm.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should know about that.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, there is real leadership! There is

real leadership! Now, you know why there was a rejection.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give some credit to the former

Premier, Mr. Peckford, whom I also heard interviewed this morning. He expressed

the view that: What the proponents should be looking at is burning the garbage

that is in Newfoundland, not importing it. That is what he is suggesting. Put an

incinerator in Long Harbour, but give priority to burning the garbage that is

here. Then if you need extra to make it profitable or to make it viable

economically, well then give consideration. But what he said is we should be

looking at managing our own garbage in this Province instead of worrying about

managing the garbage for the New England States.

Now the only one thing wrong with that is that we are not

worried about managing the garbage of New England. The proponents of this

proposal, which is not the government, the proponents of this proposal have

developed this probably because of the quantity - I don't know. Maybe because of

the cost of collecting garbage in Newfoundland. But I remind hon. members that

is exactly what the environmental process is for, to consider and hear all those

views and suggest that instead of bringing in garbage from outside the Province

we should be collecting the garbage within the Province and managing our own

waste on that basis. But let the environmental process take its normal course.

So the former Premier has made a point, although I don't

necessarily agree with him on all the comments that he made, but I give him

credit for that. He may have made a good point.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, why is the Premier and the

government backing off on providing real leadership on this issue? That is what

the people want on this issue; real leadership. That is what the people need.

Why is the government backing off and hiding behind an environmental process the

same way as they are hiding behind Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador on

economic issues. Why are they backing off instead of providing the real

leadership that they were elected to provide?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The difference is the hon. member does not

recognize leadership. He doesn't know what it means. Leadership is not being

pushed from behind like members opposite. They see a parade, so put me out there

so I can be pushed along by a group that wants to make a lot of noise. That is

not leadership. That is pushship. Leadership is yourself going out front and

taking the firm position, and leading the Province. That is what the hon. member

is not familiar with. That is what you are getting from this government, and I

am sorry he doesn't recognize it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question also

was to the Minister or Fisheries, so I suppose it is the Premier in this case.

As the Premier is probably aware, if not he should be, the

crab fishery, especially along the northeast coast in the 3K zone, has been

experiencing some real problems in the last little while - no place to sell

their catch. And other areas, especially from 3L up into the 3K zone taking it,

thereby using up the quota. Can the Premier tell the House if he is aware first

of all of what is being experienced by those particular fishermen, and what

plans his government has to deal with it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there is

a problem. I don't pretend to have the full details of the knowledge. It is not

new. It has been on the go for several months. It is not a new problem that has

just now arisen. There has been a glut of crab in the northeast coast area in

the last several months. As a matter of fact I believe the crab processors

carried over a very substantial inventory last fall that they couldn't market. I

think that is correct. The Member for Bonavista South tells me that is correct,

and I understand that. The member confirms that this is in fact so.

Now what the government can't do is fabricate markets for

crab. It is incredible that the fish plants have markets for cod and other

species that they can't find, then get lots of crab and they can't get enough

markets for them. It is one of those thinks. The government just simply can't

fabricate the market. Yes, there is a problem. Yes, the government is aware of

it and has been aware of it and has been dealing with it for a number of months.

I would have to ask the department specifically for what action has been taken,

what help they have been trying to give and so on. But I am prepared to do that

and bring the information to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act

Respecting The Holding Of A Plebiscite In The Province."

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, the continuation of the Concurrence

motion.

Is the House ready for the question?

On motion, report of Government Services Estimates Committee,

carried.

MR. BAKER: Order l.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the beginning of the examination of the Estimates of

the Executive Council. As all members know, included in this would be Government

House, the Premier's Office, Cabinet Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat,

IGA, Newfoundland Information Services, Women's Policy Office, the Hibernia

project implementation and monitoring and the Advisory Council on the Economy.

MS. VERGE: The Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

MR. BAKER: Yes, I mentioned that.

MS. VERGE: You said Women's Policy Office.

Oh, that budget comes under Women's Policy Office. I thought

it did. Anyway, we will have a look through and see.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I need to say anymore. All I

need to point out is that I am ready to receive all the slings and arrows of

outrageous rhetoric that I am sure are going to come from the opposite side.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, this covers a whole range of

territory, I guess, this particular debate, even though specifically, I guess,

it covers the expenditures of the Premier's Office. It covers the Secretariat

that serves the Cabinet. It covers the office of the President of the Council.

It covers the Treasury Board aspect of governing which then covers just about

everything, collective bargaining, in particular, and the expenditure portion of

the Budget, in particular. In reality, of course, it also covers

Intergovernmental Affairs, the budget for the Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat, so I suppose you can talk about constitution, you can talk about

native issues, you can talk about just about anything. That is the reality,

because this whole area deals with the Premier who is the Leader of the

government. We have always argued that you can talk about or ask questions about

anything so that is precisely what I intend to do. I am not going to spend my

first few moments in this debate because we will have lots of time in the days

and weeks ahead, I guess, to deal with it, until the time runs out, twenty hours

or so remaining. Throughout the course of that twenty hours, we will have an

opportunity to ask specific financial questions about the offices of the

Premier, the offices of the President of Treasury Board, and the Women's Policy

Office, for which he is responsible and of which he has a tremendous knowledge

about all the issues pertaining there.

I wanted to address a couple of issues of more of a local

concern to me, a district concern, in my constituency of Grand Falls, because I

don't get an opportunity too often to pose questions of that nature.

I just explained to the Premier that I don't intend to get

into the detailed estimates of his department today - we will have twenty hours

to do that, but I want to take the opportunity while I have it to ask some

questions of other ministers, because we are dealing with the whole government

and the Premier who is the leader of the government. I have some questions

pertaining to my constituency and perhaps I might be able to entice the Minister

of Education, or perhaps the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

respond to in the debate. I think we are using ten minutes at a time so they

will be short and sweet. I have a question on fisheries and I also have a

question on health care, or at least, social services. That minister isn't here

but maybe the Government House Leader will be able to respond. Let me deal with

the first issue that I want to address today, of a constituency nature, and say

to the Minister of Education, in particular, and to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, both of whom are involved in this issue that I wish

to raise. and it applies to the question - as we all know, the government, the

Minister of Education would certainly be aware of it because I know he is

getting lots of heat out of it. The government has backed off from yet another

one of its election promises and that is the promise of constructing or building

a university in Central Newfoundland, they backed off on that.

While we are waiting for that promise to be fulfilled by this

government, should they be there long enough to fulfil that promise, we have a

community college in operation in Central Newfoundland, with campuses in

Lewisporte, Springdale, Baie Verte, Gander and Grand Falls, with the

headquarters in Grand Falls for the college. Now, that college, I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, is in its fifth year of

operation, as he may or may not be aware, and they have a tremendous record in

the post-secondary education field, in particular. They have some of the best

records, I guess, in terms of passing and grades of passing of any of the

campuses at Memorial University, either the main campus here in St. John's or

the main campus in Corner Brook, so they have had a tremendous amount of

success, considering the fact that they have operated under some pretty

difficult circumstances.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would be

aware, no doubt, that one of the buildings that is rented by the campus in Grand

Falls, is an old substandard school that was owned by the Roman Catholic parish

out there, and he would also be aware that from a proposal, I think, that has

been put forth, at least to his officials - I hope he is aware of it - that it

would require major expenditures to upgrade that school that the college now

rents to bring it up to standard. It would cost an awful lot of money and it is

only rented from the R.C. parish.

That school that they presently use is not accessible; the

school, I think it is two kilometres - a mile-and-a-half - two kilometres away

from the main campus, which is up by the provincial building in the old district

vocational school. The rental costs for the old school, the NDA school owned by

the R.C. parish, is considerable and it takes a lot of the college's budget. And

apparently, there has been an assessment done that if they were to utilize the

underutilized space at the main campus building, some 11,000 square feet, I

think, which is available, if they could renovate that and utilize that space,

no longer need to rent the old school building and so on, it would be

accessible, it would address a lot of the concerns that the college people have

and would make a great deal of sense to develop this particular area in order to

correct those particular problems

So, I would like to ask the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, if he would participate in this debate briefly, by answering

whether or not he is aware of all of those problems.

Perhaps the Minister of Education would be kind enough to

tell me if he is aware of them, and I am sure he is, as well. But, since it is

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to whom a proposal has been

made for a $400,000 renovation project, I assume the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation would want to answer, since he has had the proposal, or his

department has received the proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation doesn't know anything about it so he is going to ask the Minister

of Education to answer for him - that's fine. I also understand, I say to the

Minister of Education, I think the college, from news reports, at least public

reports, understand that the government is considering this project proposal of

$400,000 capital, and are expecting some response sometime in the near future.

One news report said in two weeks or something they were hoping to have some

decision on it because they wanted to get work underway now, to obviously make

it available, I suppose, for the start of the new school year in September. So

that is one aspect and an immediate concern that exists at the college.

The second aspect of the college is the longer term, I say to

the Minister of Education. In the longer term, more space is going to be needed

to expand that college, which is having such great success, because, for

example, the headquarters office and staff is located at a rent-a-building

downtown, the guidance centre is outside the main campus building, the literacy

outreach and continuing education centre is over in another building, and so on.

So they are just scattered all over the place and still away from the main

campus. But there is space available. I know, a few years back, when we first

put it there, there was some look towards the future and what you might do.

There is another old school building nearby it, there is land around it and so

on.

I want to ask the minister if he would also comment, when he

stands, and tell us what efforts are being made - I am sure his department would

have to be aware of them and involved - and maybe what the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation is doing to address those problems in the long term,

but also tell me if he is aware of the problem with the short term and the

immediate request for $400,000, I think, to help deal with the short-term issue

and the old school, which they are now occupying, which is no longer up to

standard, not suitable. The fire chief and the fire department out there, I

think, have a lot of problems with it and so on.

So maybe I will just leave it at that and then I will get up

again and ask the Minister of Social Services the question I wanted to ask him

about home care and things like that, if the minister is prepared to

participate, of course.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has most of the

facts. I have very little to add, really, other than I wouldn't expect any major

decisions, even for $400,000, in the short term.

What we are doing, I guess, in elementary and secondary

education and what we are doing at the university and college level is trying to

look at the long term.

If I might just digress for a moment, we are putting together

perhaps the first long-term capital construction for elementary and secondary in

the history of this Province. We are looking at needs over the long term. I

don't know how we are going to fund it once we get it all together and the Royal

Commission Report is assessed. We are doing a total evaluation of the 525

schools in the Province and we are looking at what the options are for the

future, and we may have to look at long-term funding for that.

Now, in the same way, we have asked the university to

indicate its needs over the long term. For example, residential space is a major

problem. We are not sure what kind of student accommodation we will need on

campus. So the university is looking at the long-term capital needs, including

Grenfell, and possible other developments at that level.

With respect to the colleges, I think the member is aware

that I have had meetings on this. I don't have all the details of the

conversations we have had. I don't recall all of the details, but there was a

presentation made to the government some months ago to take some short-term

initiatives and I am having my staff look at these. I want to be perfectly frank

with the member and say that it is not likely to happen in the short term. The

college is doing an outstanding job. I would agree with his comments on the

quality of the programs that are being offered and the diversity of programs for

students, literacy and other programs. There is some excellent work being done,

but we haven't yet prepared a plan for capital development in that region.

One reason, I guess, to be perfectly frank again, is that we

don't have the resources to do what the government would like to do in capital,

whether it is in health care or in education or in other areas. These are

difficult times and we are using this period of economic restraint to put

together a plan for the future, and we are doing that in Central Newfoundland.

So I want to guarantee the member that we are aware of the

needs of that region. We know that some expansion has to take place, but we are

going to put together an overall plan. For example, how much should be

decentralized. We have other campuses. There may be space in other campuses

where some programs can be put and then use that space in Grand Falls for other

purposes. There are schools available and I visited some of the schools. I

visited an area where there is possibility for residence. We have looked at

those. There is a residence there and it is a pretty good facility. I found the

facility is a good facility; a good location, good quality construction, and I

think that is the kind of thing we have to examine. On the central university, I

think that is going to be on hold for a period of time, but certainly we are

looking at the needs of the college in total.

I am not optimistic about what can be done this year, but we

will continue our assessment and we will meet with the board again in the near

future to outline our long-term proposals and consult with them. I can't be more

optimistic than that about the short-term, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. member

for his question.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister

for being forthright. I am really glad he cleared up a misconception because I

honestly believed that the word was around that they were expecting a response

to this request in two weeks, and I will tell him why.

I will just read from a newspaper story, I guess it was

Monday, May 25, so it is only seven days old in the Advertiser, Grand Falls -

Windsor. You saw the story. A $400,000 project would provide classroom space for

first year programs and so on. Discussions have been held with provincial Works,

Services and Transportation Department officials, and preliminary plans have

been reviewed said Sheila McKinnon - Drover, the college president. Quote: "They

see this as a viable project and an efficient utilization of space," end of

quote. That is something, I guess, that the minister agrees with as well as I

do. But where the difference is, in the next paragraph it says: 'College

officials expect to hear from government over the next two weeks whether or not

the project has been approved.' That is what the story said, you see.

So presumably that was in their discussions, not with his

department but with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, and

that is why I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation if he

would answer that question. The Minister of Education just finished saying - and

he can nod if I am interpreting correctly - it is not very likely that this year

that will occur at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But I think he said in his comments it is not

very likely that will occur. We will review Hansard if we have to, but there is

no need of getting into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not very likely that (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: This year, right. However, they seem to think

from their discussions with Works, Services and Transportation - I really wish

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would be able to comment on

it because there is confusion again going to be created out in that central

Newfoundland area. I assure you I will be advising the press and the people out

there of what is going on. I want to get some answers. I would like the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation maybe to take a moment to tell me. If he

is not familiar with it, that is fine. He can get an answer for me and give it

another day, but I really think it is important because there could be some

confusion here because they expect a response, I think, according to the

newspaper at least.

She even went on to say by the way, I say to the minister,

that she would like to see the project completed by the end of the year.

Realistically though, September of 1993 would be a more probable date, but it

would mean that construction would have to get under way and plans and all the

rest of it this fiscal year. The most important thing, she says, of course is

the renovations would save the college about $500,000 a year in its operating

budget. So I presume the government would want to be excited about the potential

for the college to save $500,000 in its operating budget if you can spend

$400,000 from the capital budget to make the changes that would bring about that

$500,000 in savings in operating. I don't know if the President of Treasury

Board was listening, but I noticed his ear cocked up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. They are looking for $400,000 in capital

to make some changes to the college in Grand Falls at the campus so that they

would not have to rent the old NDA next to the Roman Catholic Church in Grand

Falls, which is a substandard building. By making these changes and moving out

of that building and everything, it would save the college $500,000 in its

operating budget annually.

So what they are saying, I think - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. That is correct. The renovations would

save the college about $500,000 per year in its operation budget. There may be

more to it than that, but that is a big part of it.

So the capital expenditure of $400,000 seems like a pretty

reasonable trade-off if they are going to be able to save up to $500,000 in

their budget annually.

I hope that the government will respond, and I hope the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation might give me his views of the

thing from his perspective, or his department's perspective, as soon as he can.

If he does not have it today, maybe he can do it tomorrow or Thursday or

whatever.

I want to ask the Government House Leader, I guess. I do not

mean to interrupt him. I apologize for interrupting him. I am sorry to be asking

questions like this. I apologize for asking questions. I am sorry. Where is the

acting Minister of Fisheries?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They are all looking around wondering who it

is. I would expect it is probably at this stage the fourth one down the line;

anyway, the Government House Leader. I am going to read a short letter, if I

might, to bring it to the attention of the Government House Leader. My friend

from Windsor - Buchans I am sure is aware of this one. This is a letter written

to the provincial Department of Fisheries three or four days ago, May 28, to

Frank Pinhorn. Frank is the Director of Processing Operations over in fisheries.

It is written by the Lions Club in Grand Falls. I received a copy of the letter.

The letter goes like this: For the past number of years, I

think it is something like fifteen years, The Lions Club in Grand Falls has had

a fund-raiser, a lobster boil. The boil usually took place from the premises of

a local business who had generously over the years donated propane. They did it

on the lot of the propane store out there, and they did it free of charge.

The lobsters were cooked in plain view of all the buyers, in

stainless steel boilers constructed specifically for that purpose, and usually

when the lobsters came out of the pot there were buyers waiting to purchase

same. Consequently, there was never any chance of cooked lobsters being

contaminated while waiting to be sold. So on, and so on, and so on. I will not

go into all of that, but they wanted the lobsters at fair price and fresh

lobsters cooked while they waited and so on - a fifteen year project.

Now the proceeds received from that project have been used to

support many other service projects. The main ones: sponsorship of the Girl

Guides; donations to the upkeep of the Max Simms Camp for the Handicapped, and

so on.

This year's lobster boil was set for Saturday, May 23. All

the arrangements had been put in place and on Friday, May 22, the day before at

2:30, they received word from the Department of Fisheries provincially that some

person, or somebody had informed them of the sale, and there is apparently a

regulation that prohibits such a sale. It does not prohibit it. I talked to

Frank Pinhorn about it. It is an extension of a regulation that is in place now;

but the point is, and they wanted to make the point, they were ordered to cancel

the lobster boil.

In the meantime, The Lions Club go on to say, of course, that

that presented problems for them. They had to advertise about the cancellation.

They had to cancel the purchase of the lobster. Maybe they had to pay some money

up front in commitments; I do not know. But they go on to say that other vendors

were across the street, and the minister knows the Exploits Valley Mall. The

propane building is right across the street from the mall, so they closed down

the Lions fifteen year lobster boil, and across the street in the Exploits

Valley Mall there were other vendors that same day boiling lobsters and selling

them.

Of course naturally The Lions Club is pretty upset about it.

I phoned Frank Pinhorn about it, and it is not his problem. There is a

regulation. If they get a complaint, yes, they have to do something about it. I

said - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They had a complaint; but The Lions Club point

was that they should have had the foresight enough to see that maybe the person

or persons who made the complaint initially did not have something to gain from

their actions. In other words, it might have been somebody across the lot.

They are very upset by it obviously, naturally, and they have

written a letter to the editor and all of this stuff. So I said to Frank

Pinhorn: Maybe what is needed is there should be some look at the regulations.

That seems to me to be probably stretching it. He said the reason for it is

because of fish and the concern about the way fish has been treated when it is

taken out of water and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. But a lobster boil by a service club

should not really be - and maybe the regulation is broad enough that it means

that. It probably should not do that. So maybe the minister might want to check

that out. I indicated I would raise it in the House just to point out the

silliness of it, because it does seem to be pretty extreme.

Now, Mr. Chairman, one other thing I want to raise while I am

on my feet, if I can, to the Minister of Social Services. I was away from the

House last week but I read Hansard where my colleague, the Member for Grand

Bank, raised some very legitimate questions with the minister concerning home

care services. This was on May 22, in the House. I am just glancing at Hansard

now. The minister said, in response to questions from the Member for Grand Bank,

that to his knowledge at this point: "...we do not have anybody who has been

denied service." Talking about the home care service under the enrichments

program of his Department. "...[A]t this point to my knowledge we do not have

anybody who has been denied service."

The minister goes on to say: "We have not denied anybody who

has asked for the service and can justify the need for the service... we have

not denied anybody. I have had a few cases where I've had to - with the

executive staff - make a decision that we do proceed and provide the service."

In other words, he had to intervene, I guess. "Even though we are limited by way

of budget."

He goes on to say: "You can't deny people the services if

they are justified and if they can make the case, and we deem that the service

is necessary and has to be provided. I do not know of a case where we have

denied service where it has been deemed that it is justified." That is a quote

right straight from Hansard.

Further on the Member for Grand Bank talked about having

talked to some officials in the Harbour Grace office, where it was confirmed for

him that budgets had been frozen, then you got into that aspect in Question

Period. The minister said that: "...even though budgets are frozen, and this

budget amount is frozen, we do have to deal with cases over and over...", and et

cetera.

Now the reason I raise it, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. Can I have maybe just a few minutes?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: The reason I raise it is because I believe my

friend for Burin - Placentia West may have raised an issue a couple of weeks

earlier quite similar to that. The Member for Grand Bank has raised it now. I

hear it around the - the Cabinet table. Not quite yet! Pretty soon, I guess. I

hear it around the caucus table quite frequently. Members on this side of the

House. I dare say members on that side - I would expect members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: They are on notice. We are going to have a

very small Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We are going to have a very small Cabinet.

Anyway, the point is that the issue and the problem is being raised I think more

every day than it has been before and I think the minister is aware of that. I

had a call myself. In Grand Falls there is a health care service. Private, just

opened up out there a couple of months back. I think it is called Olsten

HealthCare. I think they had one in here in St. John's as well. They hire

retired nurses or retired nursing assistants, professionally trained people.

When the service is requested, they can fill the service with professionally

trained people, people who have the proper training.

The company, Olsten HealthCare, has a number of registered

nurses, retired, and a number of registered nursing assistants, retired, or

part-time, available and on the list, professionally trained people who can give

this proper home care. The problem is, a lot of the people who require the

service cannot afford it, and have to seek some help from social assistance. But

under the social assistance enrichment needs program - the minister has pretty

well acknowledged - the funding has been basically frozen, and I guess they must

address each case on an individual basis. I think that is what he is saying but

I am not quite sure.

But there is a real need out in my area I know of, Grand

Falls - Windsor, a real need. I checked with this particular company, for

example, and they said they had three people in fact right now, who as far as

they could tell, needed the home care and were justified in seeking it and so

on, but who had gone to social services in Grand Falls - Windsor and were unable

to get the necessary funding approved from social service because, as she

understood it, they did not have the funding to provide so that Oleson Health

Care could pay, or hire, these professionally trained people, nurses or

whatever.

It seems to me to be a problem that is mushrooming and

growing because I hear it in several places and I want to raise it here today

because I have gotten calls from my own constituency. Since the minister is here

in the House I want to raise it in the hope that he might take a few minutes to

perhaps tell us how big a problem it is and what he is trying to do to address

it. Is he in fact addressing it on an individual basis?... because if he has to

do that as minister of the department it is going to take an awful lot of his

time to address every individual single case. I think there has to be a broader

way of addressing that particular problem. The President of Treasury Board is

gone and I was hoping he was going to make a comment on the fishery, the Lions

Lobster Boil that I raised, but maybe he will later on. The Minister of Social

Services hopefully might comment on the issue I raise here.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to

try to answer some of the concerns and questions of the Leader of the

Opposition.

Home care, as he has already said, is very much a current

problem in the sense that it is growing. The demand for home care is growing I

would suggest in all parts of the Province. The largest growing segment of our

population is seniors and as that seniors segment of the population continues to

grow and continues to place demands on us, demands on the health care system, of

course in the first instance, and demands on social services and programs within

my department, it is going to be a real challenge, Mr. Chairman.

As the Leader of the Opposition has already suggested we are

trying to address those challenges throughout the Province right now. Many of

the members of the House on both sides have had conversations with me about

their districts and about individual situations that we have been addressing, or

have addressed, as a result of their intervention or indeed we were probably

looking into in any case. The difficulty from our perspective is trying to

identify - and I am speaking now, of course, on behalf of the worker in the

field, the social worker, and other professionals and workers who have to deal

with these cases. The difficulty is trying to make a fair decision and a fair

assessment of a particular client, or clients.

We have situations, of course, where a family is available to

look after these seniors in a home setting and refuse, for whatever reasons, to

do so. We have other situations where the need is genuine and there is just

nobody available in the community or nobody available from the immediate family

or from the extended family to provide the care and we are left in a situation

where we simply have to assist, whether it be on an enhanced basis where the

couple, or the individual, cannot afford the care and we have to assist from a

monetary standpoint, or whether it be simply assisting with the assessment and

finally determining the level of care that is necessary.

Often we provide limited hours where family help is available

for some part of the day, or other help is available, and in other cases we have

to provide care literally around the clock. It depends, Mr. Chairman, on the

health of the client, or clients, and it depends on the availability of, as I

suggested, of family, extended family, and friends to assist. These assessments

are never easy and, as has been suggested, often we do get a rejection in the

field; it gets up to the regional office level, and beyond that point, of

course, either the MHA or the family, or indeed, the individual, himself or

herself, or the couple, come directly to the executive level in my department

and we deal with it.

But we have, as I said, difficult decisions to make with a

Budget that is frozen in this area, but can only be frozen to the point that -

we have to provide service, Mr. Chairman, and frozen is a word in social

services, in many parts of my department, that just cannot be applied. It is one

thing to say that your budget is set and you can't expand on it and you can't

exceed it, but it is another thing to say that you are going to deny service,

and if, indeed, the need is justified and can be justified and deemed necessary

and the alternatives are not there for the individual or individuals, in a given

family circumstance, then the home care has to be provided. So we are going

through this difficult transition period, Mr. Chairman, where home care is a

growing phenomenon, there is no question about that.

We are trying to assess, and I have asked for an assessment

to be done of the costs of the alternatives, the cost of providing space and

care for an individual in the setting of a hospital or other institution and

other location other than the home, and how that stacks up against the cost of

home care. That assessment is being done right now, but, Mr. Chairman, there is

no question, and I think the Association for Community Living and others who are

involved particularly close to this problem, agree, and are pressing for an

increased emphasis on home care of all kinds, not just with seniors but with the

disadvantaged, both physically and mentally, and those who are presently

accommodated in group homes, in hospitals and institutions.

There is an increasing emphasis and change taking place,

shift if you like, towards having people cared for in a home setting or as close

as we can get to a home setting. The problem is, of course, as I have already

mentioned, trying to have the family, if a family is available or extended

family or friends, provide the care instead of having the government step in and

have to provide the dollars necessary to provide that care from government

sources. So this is a very difficult area, but I have to say it is a growing

need.

The demand for it is growing day by day and we are trying,

Mr. Chairman, to deal with it as best we can; we are looking at all the

alternatives; indeed, we may find that the alternatives - and I am sure it is

true in most cases, particularly hospital care, the alternatives are more

expensive than the home care solution. But we cannot have it open-ended, Mr.

Chairman, we have to continually monitor it and, where possible, encourage

people to, or encourage families to look after their own, to look after their

parents, to look after other family who need this home care.

But also, Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, that is not

possible because they are working, or for other reasons they just won't provide

the care and we are left in situations, particularly with people who have real

need of assistance for often, twenty-four hours a day; but for varying numbers

of hours per day, we are left in a situation where, if that is deemed to be the

case, then, Mr. Chairman, we have to provide the care. We just cannot leave

seniors in their homes unattended if there is no other option available to us.

So, Mr. Chairman, from my perspective, as a minister, I can

only say that we are monitoring this situation very closely. It is a growing

need in the Province and, in concert with my colleague, the Minister of Health,

we are constantly looking at the health care system, looking at services

available to my department, trying to come up with good, long-term solutions, as

cost-effective as we can and keeping in mind the need and the necessity to

provide care where it is deemed necessary. Thank you.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to respond to

some of the things the minister has said, because yesterday I had first-hand

involvement in services to seniors and home care because I was part of an

appeals procedure.

Mr. Chairman, whether the minister wants to believe it or

not, what we have in this Province now is a two-tiered system of care for

seniors. Those who were already on the system and have been for the past two or

three years are able to get home care services. Those who are now in need of it

have been denied. The minister can say as often as he wants and as loud as he

wants, that no one will be denied if they need it. The fact of the matter is,

the minister should check to see the number of appeals that the Social

Assistance Appeals Board have heard in the past few days in their hearings, see

how many of them have been related to home care services. The minister will find

that the majority, an overwhelming majority, of the cases that have been heard

by that board have been for home care services. Mr. Chairman, not only does the

minister need to have a look at the policy as it presently is, I think there is

a need for a complete change in home care services in this Province.

I want to give the minister a specific example, without

mentioning any names, of a senior citizen who is eighty-three years old. His

wife recently died and he was unable to care for himself and he had to move into

his son's house. The medical people have said that this gentleman needs

twenty-four hour a day care and the family have provided it for the past year.

They have found it has become very burdensome and tiresome, for the gentleman or

his wife to have to be with this elderly man twenty-four hours a day, seven days

a week. So they went to the Department of Social Services and requested some

home care support. Mr. Chairman, they weren't asking for very much. They asked

the department to supply some respite care for three weekends out of a month,

six days out of a month, and they would still continue to care for the elderly

gentleman for the remainder of the month, the twenty-four or twenty-five days.

It was turned down, Mr. Chairman, at the local office.

An appeal was subsequently launched at the Administrative

Review Committee and that, too, was turned down. I wrote the minister on his

behalf and the minister referred it to the Appeals Board. Mr. Chairman, we knew

before we went to the Appeals Board that we couldn't win the case, because of a

mechanism the department has in place whereby the gentleman is a senior citizen

who gets old age pension and old age supplement coming something in the range

of, I think, $800 a month. Because he is moved out of his home, social services

now say that board and lodging that we would normally pay comes in the range of

$232 a month. So now he is left with $550 a month out of his own resources that

he could pay for home care for these three weekends.

Now, Mr. Chairman, how unfair a system! To think that we can

pay $230 a month for someone who is capable of looking after themselves in a

board and lodging situation and a senior who needs twenty-four hours of care

seven days a week and to only have an allocation of $230 a month to care for

that person.

Mr. Chairman, the alternative and what I have to suggest to

the family is that in order for you to get a break you have got to apply for

home care for five or six days a week. Now, Mr. Chairman, they were only asking

for three weekends but, in order to qualify, they are going to have to ask for

continuous care and quite possibly, if the minister can free up the budget, that

is going to be granted. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong with a

system where someone is going to have to be encouraged to ask for more

government assistance in order to qualify.

So when the minister takes a look at the area of home care, I

think he is going to have to look further than just finding a dollar or two for

his budget. He is going to have to look at the regulations as they apply to

family members who are expected, as the minister said - and this son and his

wife provide twenty-four hour a day care; but, surely, God, you cannot expect

them to do it for $230 a month, as the department regulations now state.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is this $230 a month?

MR. WINSOR: Board and lodging for an individual, the

social services rate would be $230 a month. So what the department argues, now

that he is a senior citizen who gets $800 a month, now he has $550 a month left

that he can hire someone himself to assist in home care.

I am saying that the $230 a month is a rate for any healthy,

normal, able person. Surely, we don't expect someone to care for that person for

the $230 a month, the same as you would if he were a perfectly normal, healthy

person.

That is the system that is in place now and the minister, I

hope, is going to address it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The minister doesn't know what he is talking

about. I will tell you again. The senior citizen collects old age pension. It

amounts to $800 a month. He is not eligible for home care because the formula

that you use says that for board and lodging with a relative you are entitled to

x amount of money. Then, out of the remainder of his old age pension, old age

security, he has $550 left, which means he will hire someone out of his own

resources to pay for his home care.

I am saying that the $230 a month applies to normal

conditions. This is not normal. This is a case where someone has to provide

twenty-four hour a day care, and surely, it is not expected that family would

have to do that.

The minister is all too aware, I think, that the number of

requests for home care continues to rise. Frankly there are some problems with

it. I see examples throughout my district - I am not sure, but the department

might want to take a look at it - where one and two individuals, one quite

often, has four people provide twenty-four hour a day care.

The whole issue now has to be addressed whether or not we can

deliver that service cheaper in another way. In some cases it might be necessary

that personal care homes or some other type of nursing home might have to be

used. But if we are going to have the policy, if it is going to be in place,

then the minister has no choice in his department but to find money, an

allocation of resources to address it.

The minister now is already, his officials will tell you, and

if you call him tomorrow morning, and I dare the minister to pick up the phone

and call some social worker out in the field and say he is John Smith, and ask

him if he can get home support services for an aged parent. The answer will be:

No, he can't get it. The budget is spent. That is what the minister will get.

In order to get any course of action, the minister has just

suggested what you have to do. But what does that do for the person who first

has to go to the local level and be rejected? He has to go to the administrative

review and be rejected. He then has to call or write the appeals board, and get

an appointment set up to have an hearing. Then maybe a month or two months later

he gets an hearing.

What happens in that four month duration? What happens in

that four month duration when that person needed home care? They needed it when

they went to the social worker initially.

The minister has to come to grips with it, and come to grips

with it very shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: He could very well be dead then. That is

quite possible. That could very well occur. That has occurred on a number of

occasions where I have had to intervene on behalf of constituents to try to get

support, and we find out, too late, we don't need the support now because the

person has died. That is a sad reflection on our system and our society, when we

can't care for our aged.

If the minister - and I would urge the minister to do it -

thinks that there is money left in his department for home support services, I

ask the minister to write every one of the social workers that he has stationed

throughout this Province, and tell them to examine each case individually; to

not shut the door immediately, as soon as the request is made, because you don't

have any money; and if it takes the minister going to Treasury Board and asking

the President of Treasury Board to find some more money, to authorize him or the

Minister of Finance, whoever is going to do it, to give him some extra money for

programs, then the minister is going to have to do it because it is of vital

importance that this occur.

I have some questions for the President of Treasury Board,

but I see he is not in his place, so I will let the minister respond and wait

until the President of Treasury Board comes back.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to rise to

speak on the issue of supply to discuss an issue that has been brought to my

attention as a defect in the Province's policy with respect to raising revenue.

I am sure the Minister of Finance would be interested because he has been

looking at revenues from lotteries, and from video machines and other forms of

gambling that are permitted for the revenues of the Province. We have seen, Mr.

Chairman, a significant increase in the amounts of money, the revenue that the

Province intends to raise through this means.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we don't have the exact numbers because we

are still waiting for the provision of these numbers which were requested in the

Social Services Estimates Committee. They have been requested and they have not

yet been forthcoming. I want to speak, Mr. Chairman, about the net effect of all

of this money going into lotteries. In fact, it is sending money out of the

Province.

Mr. Chairman, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is the vehicle

by which the government gets involved in the raising of funds through lotteries,

and during the period, Mr. Speaker, from 1976 to 1992 - and there is an estimate

for 1992 of Newfoundland sales of $115 million, spent in this Province on the

Atlantic Lottery. Now, Mr. Chairman, if one looked at that as a net expenditure

of monies in this Province over the approximately fifteen years that the

Atlantic Lottery Corporation has been in existence, there have been a total of

nearly $500 million spent on lotteries in this Province, on the Atlantic Lottery

Corporation vehicles, a total of $489 million, nearly $500 million spent by

members of the public in this Province in sales to the Atlantic Lottery

Corporation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if one looks at the distribution of the

monies that are spent here - and that is assuming that we get our share of the

prizes, and that may or may not be the case. Statistically, we would think that

of the prizes, Newfoundland's per cent of the prizes would be similar to its per

cent of the sales. In the last year that I have, Mr. Chairman, the 1987 - 1988

annual report, Newfoundland had a 30 per cent of the total sales of the Atlantic

Lottery Corporation, and shared in 64.4 per cent of the profit. I am sorry, that

is a different category here. But in sales in 1986 - 1987, Mr. Chairman,

Newfoundland had that share of the sales. Of the funds that were raised, 23 per

cent of those funds was spent on operations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, most of that operational money is spent,

not in this Province, but is spent elsewhere in Canada, some spent on the

production of materials and tickets, which are printed in Western Canada, I

understand. Mr. Chairman, the headquarters of this organization is in Moncton,

New Brunswick. Of the operational expenditures, almost all that money is spent

outside of this Province. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it has been described in the

following way: If you take one dollar of money that is spent by a Newfoundlander

on an Atlantic Loto ticket, of that amount of money approximately 46 per cent of

that dollar would be spent in prizes; 35 per cent is profits to the government,

and to the people who participate in the lottery sales; 23 per cent is spent on

operations. Of that 23 per cent spent on operations, 12 per cent of that 23 per

cent, or twelve cents out of every dollar, is spent outside the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

So what we see is a government-sponsored revenue generating

project that has a net result of taking twelve cents out of every dollar spent

on it and sending it directly out of the Province. Now there is no attempt made

to share the wealth on those operating expenses to ensure that the headquarters

of the Atlantic Loto Corporation, for example, could shift from one province to

the other. That Newfoundland would have some of the administration money spent

here for a period of time. This organization has been in operation for some

fifteen years or more. All of that operational or administration money is spent

in the province of New Brunswick.

We in fact do not see how the Atlantic Loto Corporation, as

the vehicle for government involvement in lottery schemes, benefits this

Province when in fact what it involves is a net outflow of cash from this

Province. It is in the form of expenses that are spent elsewhere, that are spent

in the province of New Brunswick.

Now there has to be a better way for this Province to raise

revenue than to engage in this type of nonsensical economics. Nonsensical

economics that the Minister of Finance should be able to get up and explain. How

is it that the government is prepared to countenance twelve cents out of every

dollar spent on government-sponsored lotteries going out of the Province? That

if the government chooses to raise money on lotteries - which is a different

question altogether - I am not going to get into that debate at the moment,

although there are pros and cons on it. I do not think that this Province has

engaged in appropriate studies to determine who is spending that money. It has

been described as a tax on the poor or a tax on those who can least afford to

add additional revenues to government coffers, who might, out of a sense of

desperation, hope that they might be enriched by buying these lottery tickets.

These individuals are contributing to government revenues, not only of this

Province but also of the provinces that benefit from the Atlantic Loto

Corporation more than this Province does.

So perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us why he permits

this loss of revenue from Atlantic Loto Corporation, and why does the

government, which is a partner in this corporation, not insist on a more

equitable distribution of the benefits of this lottery scheme going to the

Province of Newfoundland. There is a very high level of expenditure that covers

operations, twenty-three cents out of every dollar. I am told, and I think this

can be discerned from the total of the provinces involved and by looking at the

annual returns, that of those twenty-three cents on every dollar, what is spent,

and the net outflow for the Province, includes: all of the ticket printing,

which is a considerable amount of money; 80 per cent of the marketing and

administration; and 100 per cent of the data processing that goes on that are

costed out as about $25 million of the total budget.

So it works out to about 12 per cent of the gross sales that

are spent outside of this Province and are in fact resulting in a net outflow of

dollars from this Province. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how the minister can

continue to permit.... For example, in the estimated sales for 1991 -1992 -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Could I have leave to finish this sentence,

Mr. Chairman?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The net outflow projected in 1991-92 based on estimated sales

in this Province of $115 million for Atlantic Lotto tickets, the net outflow

from this Province to other provinces would be approximately $13 million. Mr.

Chairman, $13.5 million of the $115 million spent in this Province on lottery

tickets for Atlantic Lotto alone are going right out the door and are lost to

this government in the form of revenue. I wonder if the Minister of Finance can

explain why this is a good thing for the Province of Newfoundland?

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments on

this but I want to get into what is taking place with regards to the Executive

Council and the Premier's Office that has been covered in this, and why there

has been such exorbitant expenses in the various offices of the department.

First of all I want to make a few brief comments about what the Executive

Council is costing this Province. I want to talk about the $8000 that the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is getting for his car. I want to talk

about the $8000 that the Minister of Health and the other ministers are getting

a year for their cars. To do what? They are getting $8000 a year to drive their

cars to work and if they stir on government business they go out to a company

and lease one. That is what I want to talk about. The Premier gets $8000 to

drive his car to work and when he wants to move in the city there is a chauffeur

with a big hat and the government limousine comes and picks him up. That is what

is going on in this Province. That is what I want to talk about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: That is what I want to talk about, the

chauffeur driven limousines that the Premier has, the number of chauffeurs that

the Premier has. Joey Smallwood had a chauffeur, he had one. Brian Peckford and

Frank Moores did not have any and this Premier has two chauffeurs and two

limousines. That is what is taking place in this Province. The Minister of

Finance, the fellow who is totally responsible for crippling the economy of this

Province, refused to give the pensioners of this Province an increase, yet he

had no hesitation in taking his $8000 a year for driving his car to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much do you get

MR. TOBIN: I do not get anything, Mr. Chairman.

He gets $8000 a year for driving his car to work. And, what

happens if the Minister of Finance has to go out to Carbonear to speak? Does he

drive in his own car or does he phone up Tilden, Avis or Budget and rent another

car? The Premier of this Province gets $8000 for driving his car to work and if

he has to go to the university what does he do? The chauffeur with the big cap

drives up, parks in front of the door, gets out, opens the back door and lets

the Premier in the limousine and he goes to the university. Now, that is what is

going on in this Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: It does not stop with the Premier either.

His staff, too, have been seen.

MR. TOBIN: And his staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Indeed I was with him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: When Brian Peckford was Premier of this

Province do you know what he had? A Chevy Blazer, an old two-door Chevy Blazer

is what Brian Peckford had as Premier of this Province. This Premier has an

$8000 a year car allowance and he has two chauffeur driven cars.

MR. MATTHEWS: We even got the licence plate numbers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Premier of this Province has two chauffeur

driven cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lies, lies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I would ask him to withdraw that, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, that is unparliamentary and I

ask that he withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Is that parliamentary for the Minister of

Forestry and Lands to refer to what I am saying as 'lies', and if it is not, I

would ask that he withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not hear any comment made by

the hon. minister. If the hon. minister said it, well then I ask him to withdraw

it, but the Chair did not hear what the hon. minister said.

MR. TOBIN: Well then, I heard it and everybody else heard

it. The Premier of this Province has two chauffeur driven cars. One is a grey

Oldsmobile and the other is a two tone Chevvy and he drives his own car right

there. Not only that, for a long time when this government came to power, the

Premier had a Chevvy Blazer, and do you know what the Chevvy Blazer was used

for?... the Member for Exploits going to the golf course.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, he got caught.

MR. TOBIN: He got caught going to the golf course in the

Chevvy Blazer, that is what happened. When it was raised in this House, what was

happening, up Bally Haly in the government owned Chevvy Blazer for driving the

Member for Exploits around golfing, and his caddy, so, Mr. Chairman, those are

the questions I want answers to.

I want to know from the ministers how often, in addition to

their $8,000 for their cars, they have leased cars, how often they have taken

taxis paid for by the taxpayers of this Province. I want to have the log on the

limo. I want the limo log, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation promised the other day he was going to give it to me, I have not

seen it yet, but I want the limo log because the minister has assured me that

all the trips are logged. The drivers, the Premier's chauffeurs keep a log -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You are wrong, you are wrong. The Premier of

this Province has-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: This government has on its payroll, it is not

showing slick enough, Mr. Chairman, the Premier did not include his chauffeurs

under the Executive Council, he shuffled them off to the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation and Public Works, that is where he has them hidden

away and that is where he has their salaries hidden away but we uncovered it in

the estimates committees last week; we were able to uncover it, that the Premier

of this Province - uncovered what?... salaries for two chauffeurs.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Salaries for two chauffeurs.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many did you have, three?

AN HON. MEMBER: $200 tips, $400 tips.

MR. TOBIN: I would not put anything past you. $200, $400,

I would not put it past you. In my opinion you are capable of it. Now that is my

opinion I could be wrong but if you want to give someone $200 or $400 tips,

don't go boasting about it because there is no one over here who will take any

great satisfaction in it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that is what I want to talk about. I want

to talk about the Premier chartering planes. The Premier of this Province has

chartered planes and gone to the mainland -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he has so. The Premier of this Province

has chartered planes and gone to the mainland rather than fly economy or first

class or executive class with Air Canada or Canadian Airlines. He has chartered

planes, landed on the tarmac, I saw him, Mr. Chairman. Chartered planes in this

Province that is what he has done. When Brian Peckford was Premier, what did he

do with the planes? He cancelled them, sold them. He sold the plane that is what

Brian Peckford did in 1979, when he became Premier, he sold the plane.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to my left if they would constrain

themselves please.

MR. TOBIN: I am glad the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture brought that question to my attention. The Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture talked about booze in the executive dining room. Let me ask the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, if there has been any booze in the

executive dining room in the last three years? Let me ask the Minister of

Forestry that question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Chairman. Well that is strange because

I had lunch in the executive dining room not too long ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I had lunch in the executive dining room not

too long ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who with?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Finance (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I wasn't, but my colleague from Mount Scio

- Bell Island was there the same day, I believe. The Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs was there, the Leader of the Opposition was there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dining room.

MR. TOBIN: That is the executive dining room.

MR. WALSH: I never knew it existed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, that is not true. The

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Oh, you didn't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: No I didn't.

MR. TOBIN: You had lunch there and you didn't know it was

a dining room. You thought it was the washroom.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island now knows where the executive dining room is. So the Minister of

Employment, since he got in government and politics knows where Bally Haly Golf

Course is. The Minister of Finance knows how to give all his colleagues an

$8,000 car allowance and knows how to cut the pensioners in this Province. He

knows how to not give an increase to the people on social assistance, but still

give an $8,000 -- How can the minister justify driving up there in an $8,000

car.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: For their own car.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if it is the cheapest car in

town, why don't they buy one for everybody? Why don't they say: Here boys,

everybody go out and buy a car like mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the Member for

Carbonear that I have a Ford Taurus, and I have a Jeep Cherokee if he wants to

know, and I have a Ford pick-up if he wants to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Do you want to know what else I got. The

bottom line is that the taxpayers of this Province are not paying for my Ford

Taurus like they are paying for the Premier's. They are not paying for my

Cherokee like they are paying for the Minister of Forestry's. That is what is

going on in this Province. I paid for it. That is what is going on in this

Province. They are not going around on entertainment expense accounts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. TOBIN: Who? I will get into anything because this

government has to be exposed for their deceitfulness.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: This government is deceitful -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

MR. TOBIN: The Government House Leader gave me leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave of the House? The hon. member

doesn't have leave.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: In reaction to my hon. colleague from the other

side I have to get up and honestly say that I had a much better time I guess

when it came to entertainment and the finer things of life when the Tory

government was in this Province than what I am enjoying right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Somebody said in the House yesterday that I was

the most expensive president of the federation of municipalities, and I guess I

have to admit that I was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Carbonear.

I would ask that hon. members refrain from such loud private conversations.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: Because, Mr. Chairman, when I think back on my

seven and a half years as Mayor of Carbonear and the fun that I had, the

opportunity that I had to enjoy, I guess, the finer things of life, with my hon.

friends they were at that time, and friends they are now. I must say, I got a

heck of a lot more out of the PC government than I am after getting out of the

Liberal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: When I think about the hon.- and he is a good

friend of mine. I am not being critical of him. He lives next door to me, in

fact - the hon. Mr. Peckford coming to Carbonear to open up the Carbonear bypass

road on Friday afternoon at 2:00 and opening up Fong's Restaurant, and leaving

the bar open in Fong's Restaurant in Carbonear from 2:00 on Friday afternoon

until 11:00 Sunday night. I think we were having a good time in Carbonear. I had

no problems with that.

I have been listening to my hon. colleague on the other side,

a number of friends of mine on the other side making comments about -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) what the member is saying to this

House is not true. I think basically he is misleading the House, and I think he

should be very cautious about it, because the former Premier - and we may have

it checked out, because what he has done is cast aspersions on Fong's Restaurant

and the former Premier by saying that the bar was left open in that building for

two days, from Saturday until - I am serious about this. I intend to pursue it.

He cast aspersions on Fong's Restaurant to say that the bar

was left open -

MR. MATTHEWS: That is what he said.

MR. TOBIN: That is what he said, and I would ask him to

retract it, apologize, or prove it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: I did not say - Hansard will record that I said

the bar was opened at 2:00 that afternoon and never closed until 10:00. That is

what I said. I did not say that the hon. the Premier or anyone else paid the

bill. I guess us smart Liberals on this side can infer whatever we want to, I

suppose, when it comes to -

I have been sitting on this side of the House now for almost

three years, and I have been listening to my hon. friends and colleagues on the

other side trying to find something to criticize this government about. They

have had a lot of difficulty. I have heard on a number of occasions my hon.

friend from Burin - Placentia West talking about the $8,000 car allowance. Well

let me tell you about the $8,000 car allowance, for the record.

Number one, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also gets

an $8,000 car allowance. He has his car. No problem with that. I have no trouble

with it.

When I heard there a couple of years ago that the hon.

Cabinet ministers and the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition were getting

an $8,000 car allowance, I looked into it and found out after that the $8,000

actually goes on their cheque, which they have to pay income tax on, and they

do. Then I suppose the fact that they have to do what we do, and that is - the

hon. Minister of Forestry says: Change your oil and buy parts for the car, and

then pay insurance on the car. I went along to a Cabinet minister one day and

said: You fellows really had the job done on you, because in comparison to the

system that was there prior, where the government owned all the cars, and

remember what the cars were, now. Some of them drove top of the line, what were

they called? Blazers? Yes, some of them did. In fact, my friend in Carbonear had

one, a beautiful one - drove it a number of times. You know who I am talking

about.

MR. REID: Chev Caprices.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crown Victorias.

MR. REID: Ford Crown Victorias. They were all lined out,

and we had them. When we came in we found them. I will not say there were

hundreds of them, but there were tens of them all over the place. I would look

out from my third level window over in the West Block and I would look down and

see all of these wonderful cars, and I would say: Am I ever going to be lucky

enough one of these days to get my hands on one of those good cars so I can take

the -

Then, all of a sudden the hon. Clyde Kirby Wells says: No

boys, I am sorry. This is a waste of money. And he gets rid of the whole works

of them - gone - not the one. Then he talks, and being the smart man he is, then

he talks all of his Cabinet colleagues into taking an $8,000 car allowance to

substitute for a Crown Victoria that they never had to pay a cent on, and he

talks them into taking $8,000. I sat down and I said to my hon. friends in

Cabinet: there is something wrong with you, because it is no good to you. It is

absolutely no good to you. You are going to walk away with approximately $3,000

a year to pay on a car that you can't -

MR. TOBIN: Don't be so stunned (Inaudible)!

MR. REID: Well, what is it? What do you pay income tax

on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I think the Premier is close to being ready to

present in the House his expenses, as Premier, in comparison to the other

premiers in the country. I am sure, if I remember, I saw the expenses of the

present Premier of Newfoundland, in comparison to the previous premier of

Newfoundland, just last year. I think there was quite a drastic difference,

right?

You made reference to the fact that the Premier did fly in -

rented a plane, or hired a plane, and flew to Ottawa. He was questioned about

that. Believe it or not, someone had the gall to get up in caucus and question

him about that. He came back with the answer that if he had to turn around and

take the people who were flying with him and fly Air Canada, it would have cost

more money to fly Air Canada economy than renting a plane to fly them to Ottawa.

And he proved that. In fact, I believe, if I am not mistaken, that was tabled in

the House.

The best one of all, Mr. Chairman, was one day one of my

friends in caucus came along and whispered and said: guess what I found down in

the private dining hall? Now, I do not know, and I had to ask my hon. friend

from Cormack there a few minutes ago, I do not even know where the Premier's

private dining - where was it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. REID: Is it on the main floor? Where is it? Anyone

know? I do not know where it is. Where is it?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) $50,000 a year (Inaudible)?

MR. REID: Let's talk about that now, that's a good one.

We'll talk about that one after. Private dining hall, and somebody whispered in

my ear and said: guess what we found, Reid, down in the private dining hall? I

am not lying, Mr. Chairman. If I am lying, please bring me up about it and make

me apologise. We found $5,000 worth of cigars and cigarettes down in the

Premier's private dining hall, $5,000 worth of cigarettes. What were they going

to do with the cigars and cigarettes, $5,000 worth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I suppose, yes, maybe that is what they were

doing. I said: what? Five thousand dollars. Then it struck me with the cigars,

because our Premier has a problem with smokers. His biggest problem is the House

Leader, because he is probably doing more smoking than anybody else, and he gets

up close to him and it irritates his eyes and so on. Anyway, the Premier has

trouble with smoke and smokers. When he took over the government he took the

ex-premier's car, Mr. Peckford's car, and he had to get rid of it. Because he

said the stench of cigar smoke in the car was too much for him to take.

So when I was told there was $5,000 worth of cigars down in

the private dining hall, well, I figured where most of the cigars were going. I

do not think they were giving them out in Salvation Army hampers at

Christmastime. They were going somewhere. I would say that I - that was it, knew

right away where they were going.

That was only the small stuff. That was very small. He

whispered to me and he said: that is nothing, there's $25,000 worth of booze

down there too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that's totally false and you

know it (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an

interesting debate, and I am sure for anybody watching it they would wonder what

it is all about. I am sure they must wonder what it is all about.

One thing I can say, that the Member for Carbonear is rather

gullible. He is rather gullible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Naive.

MR. MATTHEWS: Everything the Premier tells him, he

believes. He doesn't ask for the proof. He believes everything he tells him.

Getting back to the cars and the car allowances. As the Member for Burin -

Placentia West said from his seat, when these ministers are ministers for three

or four years, they get $24,000 or $32,000 of taxpayers money that they pay for

their car with, plus the gas card that goes with it, plus the expenses of the

entertainment for meals and others that they have throughout the day. So when

you add it all up, they can drive away with a decent car that the taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador have paid for, I say to the Member for Carbonear. It

really isn't their car.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, when I look at the car that the

Premier has parked out in his spot every morning, bought at Beothic Ford I say

to the Member for Carbonear, and most of the time he is around the city when he

is at functions. And the member is right. He is picked up in the grey Oldsmobile

and dropped back. He doesn't use his own car. A chauffeur picks him up, drives

him to the function and brings him back. Now not that I have any difficulty with

that because he is the Premier. But you can't have it both ways. Don't get up

and knock someone else because they had a chauffeur or someone drove them in a

car. Be fair about it. Every time the Premier goes to a function around this

city at lunch time, the grey car picks him up - I have seen it 100 times myself

- and brings him back. Not only does the car pick up the Premier, I have seen it

pull up and pick up his staff and other executive assistants of ministers

opposite in the grey car.

As a matter of fact I brought the grey car to the attention

of the House in the old Legislature when I introduced the licence number, and as

well the licence number for the Blazer that the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, before he was minister when he was parliamentary assistant to

the Premier, got caught up at Bally Haly with the golf clubs in the back of it.

Now that is the truth of it. He got caught, and immediately when I gave the

licence number the Premier reached back and said: Roger, put the keys in my

hand. It is over for you. Everyone remembers that. Now those are the same hon.

gentlemen, the same hon. members over there who are criticizing someone else

from the past. But this government promised real change. Yes, there has been

real change, but it has been change for the worse. Change for the worse I say to

the Member for Carbonear.

MR. BAKER: I thought it was better.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well of course you think it is better, I

say to the President of Treasury Board. You would think it is better. It is

better than what we had it, and you thought we had it pretty good. So that is

the truth of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Never you mind, now, I say to the Member

for Carbonear. When I talked about the champaign and chocolates from Belgium,

when I called him and asked him about having the chocolates in Belgium a few

weeks ago, I say to the Member for Carbonear, when he was over sampling the

Belgium chocolate diplomatically on overfishing, I say to the Member for

Carbonear. When he visited the troops in Lahr, Germany, with the German wine and

the champaign, I say to the Member for Carbonear. And to be so naive as to think

that you could take a plane from St. John's airport and park it on the tarmac in

Ottawa for a week and it would save money from flying up three or four people to

Ottawa with him. We knew who was up there. We knew who was up with the Premier.

The Member for Pleasantville was up there, and Judy was up there. We all saw him

on television saying: good night, Judy. She was up there with him. Who else was

up with him?

MR. TOBIN: What did he say?

MR. MATTHEWS: Good night, Judy. Who else was up there

with him, I say to the member? Who else was up there? How many more? Three or

four seats to Ottawa on Air Canada would cost the equivalent of putting a plane

on the tarmac in Ottawa for a week? Now the Member for Carbonear has to come

down to reality.

Now there are a few questions I want to ask the President of

Treasury Board, the President of the Council. We have heard about the $20,000

entertainment allowance for the Premier's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Debby Coyne.

MR. MATTHEWS: Deborah Coyne was up there, but the

Province shouldn't have paid for her trip. Someone else should have paid for

that. She was up there on other interests obviously. It wasn't the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We know the story on that one. I hope the taxpayers

didn't pay for that. I really hope they didn't.

Premier's entertainment allowance, $20,000, which the

government was so proud to announce. Twenty thousand dollars to run the

Premier's house.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Just hold on now. That is not all, let me

say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. What is the allowance for is the

question?

Does it cover all the Premier's entertainment expenses? Or is

it for entertainment at the Premier's home? Those are the questions we want

answered. What is it for? Does the Premier pocket it, the $20,000? Does he put

it in his pocket on top of his $100,000 plus salary? We know the Premier could

not live on a Leader of the Opposition's salary. That someone had to give him a

$50,000 supplement. Now we find out, he said here last year, that he could not

run his home and have his lawns mowed on his salary that he gets, somewhere,

what, $130,000, $140,000 minimum. So where does the $20,000 go, I ask the

President of Council?

MS. VERGE: In his bank account.

MR. MATTHEWS: Where does it go? Does it go down in

whatever bank it is down there for the Premier? Where does it go?

MR. REID: I told him he shouldn't have gotten rid of his

private dining hall!

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to say to the Member for Carbonear,

we know where the private dining room is, it is now on Glenridge Crescent, where

the Premier lives. That's where the private dining room is, it's moved from here

down there, obviously. That's where it is! Don't kid yourself. Twenty thousand

dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: You'd be surprised, I say to the Member for

Carbonear. You'd be surprised who serves the food at the Premier's house.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: You were down there! You were so down there!

MR. REID: I was never (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You were so down there!

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the question I want to ask the

President of Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MS. VERGE: Only the important members get invited

(Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) the Member for St. John's East was

down there.

MR. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MS. VERGE: Only the important members (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Only important members....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. MATTHEWS: My time is going to run out and I will not

have half the questions asked, I say to members. I know that they want to ask.

How is that $20,000 accounted for, I want to ask the President of the Council?

How is it accounted for? How does he account for it? Can the President of the

Council answer some of these question for us? How it is accounted for?

MS. VERGE: He probably hardly ever gets invited.

MR. MATTHEWS: Really? I know he does not spend much time

down there for dinner, and I can understand that. I would say he has been

invited a few times and he turns down the invitation. I tell you, I can

understand why he would do that. Because I would say that whoever is invited in

there, you are only permitted to eat. You must listen all the time. I have been

told that, by the way. That, yes, you are invited to dinner, but you make an

awful mistake, because you are brought there to listen to the views of the one

and only. Mr. Perfect, the Member for Burin - Placentia West calls him.

MR. DOYLE: Bill, Bill, they're part of the vegetables.

MR. MATTHEWS: I have been told that. I have been told

that you go to listen. You do not go to offer opinions, or to offer advice, you

get told to listen. I have this from authority of someone who was there!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair has tolerated -

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I must say, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think if we were at a social gathering

that the behaviour of hon. members would be quite acceptable. But I think in the

last fifteen to twenty minutes that the behaviour in this House is unacceptable

to this person. I suggest that if hon. members want to speak in the debate that

they would rise and the Chair will recognise them. I will not tolerate the kind

of behaviour that is going on here right now.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good

ruling, and it is time that you brought them to order. Because what they are

getting on with here today is - I heard that the behaviour at Mingles a few

weeks ago was better. I was not there, but I heard it was better than this.

MS. VERGE: Where's Mingles?

MR. MATTHEWS: That's not a story, where Mingles is. So,

what is the accountability on the $20,000, is a question I have to ask the

President of Council? Will he table an itemized accounting of the expenses

incurred under the heading and a list of the people entertained? Will he do

that? These are the kinds of things that I - right? Has the Premier entertained

members and supporters of the Party under the $20,000 entertainment allowance?

Those are things I would be interested - who really is the beneficiary of this

$20,000 entertainment allowance for the Premier to run his home? That is what we

need, right?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) is it all charged to that $20,000?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. It is charged to that $20,000 or is

charged elsewhere? Because I have been told -

MS. VERGE: Well, he has The Stone House send a caterer,

(Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, yes, when The Stone House caters to

functions for the Premier, that is a good question. Is that charged to the

$20,000 account, or is it charged to the department t