December

5, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 69

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: On November 3rd, I informed hon. members that

government was projecting a budgetary shortfall of $60 million in its 1995-'96

fiscal year.

Since that time, each minister has been asked to review his

or her department's spending estimates to identify savings to restore a fully

balanced budget position this year. I am able to advise the House today that

government has taken decisions which will balance the budget for this fiscal

year.

In arriving at the individual decisions that comprise this

$60 million, we have attempted, where possible, to avoid direct impact on the

public. Consequently, we have placed considerable emphasis on the reduction of

departmental operating budgets. We have also been able to achieve cash flow

savings in our capital accounts.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recognize that the majority of

government's discretionary expenditures are salaries. Consequently, it is not

possible to obtain significant savings without affecting our employees. The

spending reductions that have been accepted include reductions in the public

service of 475 positions; 390 of these positions are presently filled and are

spread across a number of departments and agencies of government. All of the

individual employees affected will be notified this week. The savings this year

will be $4.7 million less any severance payments required. The annualized saving

each year thereafter from these staffing measures will amount to approximately

$18 million.

In taking these staffing measures, government was conscious

of minimizing the impact on services to the public. Of the positions where

lay-offs will take place, less than fifty will be front-line workers. The result

is that the majority of the staff cuts have taken place in our administration

structure. This includes reductions in our central agencies such as Cabinet

Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Department of Finance. The hon.

the Premier has reviewed the mandate of his own office and has put in place a

restructuring which will lead to a 40 per cent reduction in staffing from

seventeen to ten positions.

The government will achieve $30 million in savings through a

variety of program reduction measures, the more significant of which are as

follows:

As hon. members are already aware, government will reduce

Municipal Operating Grants by $4.1 million this year.

We have been particularly sensitive to the health care sector

which is undergoing a period of fundamental restructuring. We believe,

nevertheless, that savings of approximately $2.5 million can be made to year end

in the areas of grants to institutional health boards, the faculty of medicine,

and spending at MCP without disrupting the provision of essential health

services to all residents of our Province. This represents less than one-third

of 1 per cent of government spending on health care operating budgets.

The operating grant to the University will be reduced by $3.4

million for the balance of this year, and school board operating grants will be

reduced by $3.9 million, and provincial colleges will be required to achieve

savings of approximately $2 million.

The Department of Social Services has identified $3.1 million

in savings through reduced program spending in community development and other

areas. This represents less than 1 per cent of this year's Social Services

budget.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, the

Economic Recovery Commission, and the Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology will contribute $4.9 million in both program and operating savings.

In the Department of Justice we will reducing our

expenditures under the RCMP contract for policing in this Province by $1.9

million this year, and we will be implementing certain economies in the

operations of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. These budget reductions in

policing will be implemented in such a way as to ensure that our principal

policing functions are not affected.

The Women's Correctional Centre at Stephenville will be

relocated to the more modern facility at Clarenville and male inmates currently

housed at the Clarenville facility will be transferred to available space in

other locations.

Mr. Speaker, the balance of our expenditure reduction plan

includes having departments and agencies further reduce their operating budgets

by $11 million and defer $9 million of capital expenditures. The Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro Corporation will remit an additional $2.9 million in

dividends from that originally estimated in the Budget.

The plan I am presenting today represents an important step

in maintaining the Province's financial creditability. We face major fiscal

challenges next year. The general economic outlook for the Province in the

near-term as well as the stance of the Federal Government with respect to

transfer payments and other expenditure areas indicate the need for a

fundamental review of our spending programs for 1996-'97. In particular, the

Federal Government's $100 million reduction in transfer payments for health

care, post-secondary education and social services dramatically affects our

ability to continue our current levels of service to the people of the Province.

The adjustments we are announcing today will allow government to balance our

Budget for this fiscal year. To continue to do so next year and thereafter, will

require a resolution of fundamental questions about the essential services which

the people of this Province want, expect, are prepared to pay for and the manner

in which they are to be delivered.

Government will put in place a process for an orderly and

well-planned approach to restructure government services. Over the medium term,

the Province expects brighter economic prospects. We are committed to meeting

the challenge and maintaining a sound financial position in the interim. We

believe this to be in the best interest of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what this Statement the minister has just read

today says to us is that he is now confirming government's inability to budget,

government's inability to manage and the failure of government's economic

policies, Mr. Speaker. Everything we have said would happen over the past number

of Budget Speeches has indeed come to pass. What we are looking at here, Mr.

Speaker, now, is crisis management on behalf of this government.

Crisis management of a crisis of their own making, I would

suggest, because they should have known last year, that the Budget they brought

into this House was unrealistic and unattainable. It is no surprise to us, the

Opposition told them that at the time, Mr. Speaker, and I think it was an

unrealistic Budget based on false pretences and false assumptions on behalf of

this particular government.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we have seen some

inappropriate management and I refer specifically to the $27 million in Special

Warrants, that show crisis-buying or impulse-buying which has caused a large

portion of this particular problem that the minister is trying to deal with

today. And I suggest to him also, that the crisis is one of their own making

because of the predictions in their Budget, and I remind government that three

years ago, they set themselves on a course, a three-year course of balancing the

Budget by next fiscal year and in their Budget Speech of last year, they

announced where they were one year early. Now, they are back on target, Mr.

Speaker. And now that they are back on target, it appears to be a great crisis,

all of a sudden, that they are trying to deal with, and a large part of the

crisis was caused by their Special Warrants, Mr. Speaker.

What it amounts to, is that they are now cutting for the next

three or four months, $9.3 million from the education Budget over all to pay for

water bombers they bought this summer; three million dollars from social

services programs, Mr. Speaker, to pay for Marble Mountain; $2.5 million from

health care to pay for the Cabot Corporation which they a month later totally

disbanded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: One point nine million dollars, Mr. Speaker,

from the RCMP funding, from policing in this Province, to pay for the

educational referendum. We know what that did. Four point seven million dollars,

which represents a loss of 475 positions that this government has been telling

us ever since it came into office six or seven years ago it was going to cut

each year. Now it is finally doing it. The cost of that of course will be borne

by the public servants of this Province, and by the people of this Province.

The real question is, is this not just more smoke and

mirrors? First of all there is an $11 million item in there of additional

program cuts that the minister has not identified. So he hasn't even finished

the job today of identifying where he is going to find his $60 million that he

says he wants to find.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the Economic

Recovery Commission, long overdue to cut them. This government has yet to show

us what they have produced. I have some concern -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - that perhaps some of the programs in the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. WINDSOR: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. WINDSOR: Just for another few moments. I won't....

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, what this also does - and let's

be very clear - the minister said a month ago that he would be coming forth with

a statement in due course, and he said there would be no increased taxation.

Well, $4.1 million in cuts to municipal operating grants is indirect taxation.

Two point nine million dollars additional dividend from Newfoundland Hydro will

be passed along to the consumers of this Province, and that is indirect

taxation.

The Minister of Natural Resources shakes his head. Where is

Newfoundland Hydro going to get it? The minister knows better than that. When

they go before the PUB that will be dealt with and it will in due course be

passed along.

Mr. Speaker, it is crisis management of the worst order, an

admission of gross failure in the financial management of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. member.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only have time for

a short statement, but I do wish to point out the fact that this government by

bringing in a balanced budget on both capital and program expenditure last year

made every expenditure equal to every other one. So that a capital expenditure

for water bombers and for Marble Mountain now is translated into taking away

program spending for Memorial University, for health care, for social services.

If it had the intention from the very beginning of policing

this Budget the way that it is doing it now, by taking money out of the pockets

of public servants, of health care, and universities and schools, if it had that

intention, then it should have started policing it from the very beginning and

not made those expenditures. It is now forcing the individuals in this Province

and individual public servants to pay for its inability to manage the public

purse.

Oral Questions

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Minister of Finance.

What does the government know now that the government did not

know last March when it brought in the budget for this fiscal year? What does

the government know today that the government did not know in the summer when

the government spent $27 million on items which were not covered by the March

budget? What were the government members thinking when they spent $7.2 million

during the summer for water bombers if they were determined to extract that

amount to offset the unplanned spending from schools and hospitals? Why didn't

they notify and deal with school boards and hospitals last summer?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not really sure

what the hon. member's question is. If she is asking why government made

expenditures it was because government at the time deemed it to be prudent to do

so. The water bombers were and are necessary for the protection of the forests

of the Province. It is the same as anything else in a persons personal life, you

may not plan on expenditures but they may become necessary. Government has said

all along it intends to achieve a balanced budget. Its fiscal position changes

month to month, depending on revenues.

One of the largest items that we had to account for was a

decline in equalization that was not forecast by the federal government, also a

decline in personal and corporate income taxes, according to the forecast. These

are direct transfers of monies that the federal government collects and remits

to the Province. That is essentially the major portion of the problem as we

found it. Today I have just told the hon. members and the people of the Province

how we will address it.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that $27 million of the

$60 million shortfall is explainable by the governments own overspending?

Twenty-seven million spending this summer on water bombers, Cabot celebrations,

Marble Mountain and an education referendum which were not provided for in the

March budget, unplanned spending. Will the minister explain why action was not

taken during the summer to notify school boards, colleges and hospitals that

they were going to be called upon to make the offsetting savings so they could

plan the savings over the fall instead of having to make panic decisions in the

remaining three-and-a-half months of the budget year?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Special warrants are not to cover unplanned expenditures but

unforeseen ones. In these cases the referendum was not, as I understand it, a

matter that was planned at the time of the spring budget. It was therefore not

budgeted for. As well, the water bombers is another one that the hon. member

focuses in on. Several of the other matters that she mentioned are matters that

were pending agreement with the federal government under cost-shared agreements

and and by virtue of our Financial Administration Act the Province unfortunately

cannot budget for contingencies. It can only budget for matters which it knows

at the time are to be definitely expended in the coming year. In every year

there are matters for special warrants, including the last year in which the

hon. member was a member of the conservative administration, in 1989.

Mr. Speaker, it is prudent for the government, during the

course of its fiscal year, to plan expenditures on the one hand that were not

foreseen and, secondly, to take corrective action and find that money to offset

those expenditures in other areas. That is what we have done. The dimensions of

what we would need to do was not apparent until the end of October, and at that

time we immediately began the process of asking the departments to come forward

with solutions. Those were evaluated over the last month, and in the

circumstances I believe the government has made the fairest judgement and come

to the best conclusions as to how that money should be found.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Finance, last March the government played

numbers games with the Budget. This fall the government has been playing mind

games with the public service. Today the minister announced that 390 public

servants in departments and agencies are being laid off, for a savings in this

budget year of $4.7 million less severance. Will the minister indicate how much

will be spent in severance pay, and will he indicate whether the severance will

totally offset the $4.7 million, meaning the lay-offs will not address the $60

million shortfall in this budget year.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will not be able to quantify the exact amount of severance

for some period of time. The reason is that under collective agreements

individuals have the right to bump. The person often with the least seniority is

the person who is displaced. That person, in that instance, has the least claim

to seniority and severance. Therefore, it will take some time for us to

ascertain the exact amount.

Having said that, the savings on salary budget will still be

substantial and, thirdly, we expect that the majority of that fund will be found

out of departmental budgets. Many departments have already offset the amount for

severance against their own budgets, so in the end we expect that we will

achieve very close to the amount we have in our budget of $4.7 million.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That does not make any sense, I say to the Minister of

Finance. The minister knows that the government has contractual obligations to

pay significant amounts of severance pay to public servants.

I ask the minister to tell us his revised estimate of

provincial revenue as a result of the government carrying out the cuts that he

just announced. The government is indicating an intention to take $50 to $60

million out of circulation, that's bound to have a depressing effect on

provincial sales tax and income tax and other sources of provincial revenue,

what is the minister's revised estimate of provincial revenue?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes. In answer to the first part of the

question, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the hon. member understands what I said

earlier. In order to determine whether or not severance is payable, you have to

see which employee is in effect going to be the person who actually loses a

position.

Under the collective agreements in many cases an individual

is not entitled to severance until they have been with the government nine

years, it doesn't vest for that period of time, so if someone with twelve years

seniority bumps someone with one year seniority, obviously the effective payment

of severance is much less depending on the person affected as opposed to the

position eliminated. In terms of savings to government, the savings are from the

salary of the position that was eliminated. Severance is based on the person who

ultimately may lose the job with the public service, so in that we can't give a

definite figure. I am reluctant to give a ballpark figure because experience

shows that the hon. members have an inclination to distort it. I think that

essentially addresses the first part of the question she raised.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister has just told us in effect, is he has put

in place a plan that takes senior employees who have the right to bump, they

will be moving down the line, so the bottom employee is the one who will lose a

position. In effect, what's happening is a non-voluntary demotion for employees

all the way down the line, all of whom will take a lower salary or otherwise be

forced to quit and if they quit, they lose the entitlement to their severance

pay, I understand.

Is that the minister's way of getting around the severance

position so that the person at the end of the line who is bumped out, is not

eligible for severance pay because they have been there less than nine years? Is

that his game?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member had just distorted what I did say and this is

the reason I am reluctant to give any ballpark figures.

Of the people who are displaced, some are management. In that

case it is clear what the severance package is, because the person who is

displaced, that person will lose his or her job; there is a defined right of

severance in that case. Another group of our employees affected are people who

hold bargaining unit positions, they have the right to bump. Where that ends up,

given the nature of the collective agreement, is uncertain to us at this time.

It is therefore impossible for us to quantify what exact amounts of severance

will, if anything be payable, therefore despite what the hon. member says, I

trust that if he didn't know the difference, he now does. It is impossible for

us to say as of this date, when the full bumping process has not taken place,

what the government's final liability for severance will be. When that's

determined I will certainly be pleased to report back to the House on the final

amount.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, the net result will not be $4.7 million.

Could the minister tell us: in the additional $11 million in

operating cuts that he has announced here, how many jobs will that impact?

Obviously that's not all from programs, obviously the minister is talking about

additional layoffs. That's an $11-million slush fund, or you know, undefined

cut, it's an axe fund, it's a catchall, $11 million in additional cuts and

operating. Could the minister tell us how many jobs are involved there, and in

what areas, and what will be the net impact of that altogether and tie that in,

Mr. Speaker, with the cuts in the capital expenditure this year, what are the

indirect jobs in the Province, not in the public service, but the indirect jobs

in the construction industry that will be lost as a result of freezing the

capital program for this year?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the hon. member's question, there are not other

job implications from trimming our operating budget. Those expenditures include

things such as travel, communications, some equipment purchases, computers,

things of that nature. There are no direct job implications for government in

that. As regards the other measures government has taken, there may be less work

performed for government in the private sector and that may diminish some

economic activity in the Province. Whether or not people will lose jobs as a

result of that, at this stage it is conjecture, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister some

questions now dealing with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the Economic

Recovery Commission.

Is the government going to eliminate the Economic Recovery

Commission as a dead loss -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: - and on the other side, Mr. Speaker, what

will be the impact on Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, which does have a

function? I think it needs to be totally overhauled and revamped and a lot of

what it does could be done away with, but there are some good programs there

that I would hate to lose in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Will the

minister tell us what funding programs to private enterprise will be lost as a

result of these cuts, and what benefits, what assistance, to private enterprise

will be lost here?

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

Technology.

MR. WINDSOR: Not in Chinese, please.

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: She said "How are you" in Chinese. Mr.

Speaker, I'm happy to tell the hon. member that indeed a full review of

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the Economic Recovery Commission will

be undertaken, is being undertaken, over the next three to four months.

With respect to Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador under

this current round, there will be an 11 per cent reduction. It will impact on

jobs directly in the corporation. There will be no programs to businesses

affected at this time. The Economic Recovery Commission will be reduced by 5 per

cent at this particular time. Its programs, it has done some important work on

income security, on new growth opportunities, on the nineteen economic zones and

other areas that my hon. friend is familiar with. But there will be a total

review of both of those structures in light of what has to happen next year as

well.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Let me go back to the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board again, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell us: What will be

the net impact on jobs in the health care sector and the educational sector? The

minister knows as well as I do that the educational sector can't possibly find

$9 million over the next three months. Most of their funds are locked in. Are we

looking at severe cutbacks in maintenance, in operating budgets, in supplies for

students, in school busing perhaps? How does the minister propose that school

boards are going to find $4 million over the next three or four months? How is

the University going to find $3.4 million, or the community colleges $2 million?

Are we not getting down here to nuts and bolts and a reduction in the standard

of education in this Province?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is really no need for the

hon. member to be so distraught. We think we can manage to make our

contribution. The school boards will be asked for $3.9 million. The school board

year goes from July 31 till June 30 of the following year, as the hon. member

knows. So unlike most of the departments the school boards we will be asking to

get their savings from the six-month period, from January - well, really seven

months, from now until June 30. So it won't be fair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was

serious enough to give a serious answer. I didn't realize it was going to be a

shouting match over there. I thought it was a serious question; I'm trying to

give a serious answer.

The University is asked for $3.3 million. We fund them to the

tune of $110 million and it should be able to handle that. The colleges, we are

asking for $2 million. The colleges have a total budget, if you include the

federal transfers, of about $100 million. That is one area we don't expect there

to be very much pain at all. As for the lay offs, the Department of Education

will be laying off sixty-three people. Twelve of them will be with the School

for the Deaf, the others will be with the department. Many of them are managers,

many of them are consultants, and many of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you're one of them!

MR. DECKER: Unfortunately for the hon. member, no such

luck. I will be around until the Premier asks me to leave. Mr. Speaker.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. An official, an

Assistant Deputy Minister with the minister's department, went to Grand Bank

this morning and advised the staff at the Seaman's Museum that their jobs were

being terminated and the facility was being closed in January of 1996. I want to

ask the minister: In light of that facility's important cultural and heritage

significance to Grand Bank, the Burin Peninsula and the South Coast, and as

well, the significant tourism factor that facility plays for the Burin

Peninsula, would the minister reconsider his directions to close the Seamen's

Museum in Grand Bank?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure if we are in a position to reconsider. These

decisions were all taken very seriously, over a period of time, as my colleague

the Minister of Finance pointed out, and in looking at an option which is

obviously one that has some impact for the Burin Peninsula, as the hon. member

obviously points out, it wasn't a light-hearted decision or one taken easily by

the department.

It was clear, Mr. Speaker, in examining the different

operations of the department, and the different facilities, that the Department

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation operates itself on behalf of the people of

the Province, such as the Seamen's Museum in Grand Bank, arts and culture

centres, other museums and so on, that of all the facilities in looking at and

trying to find the appropriate level of savings so that this department could

contribute to the overall balancing of the Budget exercise, that in view of all

of the department upon serious evaluation, re-evaluation, assessment and

re-assessment, of all the options available to us, this was deemed, and has been

deemed to be probably the least painful in terms of the impact in any region of

the Province. The museum itself, Mr. Speaker, of the ones operated by the

Province is, by its very nature, in need of some serious repair at this point in

time, if we are going to continue with the facility. It also needs some work

done with respect to the interpretative displays and the actual material that is

contained inside the museum.

Mr. Speaker, despite what the hon. member says, of the

properties and the museums operated by the government, it is the least visited

of all of our centres and all of our facilities. In our judgement, the best move

to make was to close this facility at this point in time, attain some savings in

this fiscal year, and have the savings then go forward into a full fiscal year

for next year and years beyond.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister

a supplementary. Two weeks ago the Premier of the Province went to the Burin

Peninsula for round table discussions and he waxed eloquent about the importance

of the tourism industry to the Burin Peninsula and indeed to this Province, as

well as the importance of small business.

Now, let me ask the Minister of Tourism, how does the

Premier's discussions, talk, and small talk, and sweet talk on the Burin

Peninsula square with the minister's decision today to close, without any doubt,

the top tourism draw on the Burin Peninsula, being the Seamen's Museum? How can

the minister stand here today and justify his decision in light of what his

leader, the government leader, the Premier of this Province, said two weeks ago

on the Burin Peninsula when he talked about the importance of tourism to the

Burin Peninsula and to this Province, and what it would mean in economic

benefits for the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no difficulty whatsoever that should be read into

what the hon. member indicates in the Premier's address at the round table a

couple of weeks ago. I am fully aware of what the Premier discussed and what was

discussed generally at that meeting, which was a very good meeting, from all

reports and accounts.

What we are talking about is a decision of the Province

itself to no longer maintain a provincial museum, funded completely by the

taxpayers of the Province from the general revenues of the Province, and paid

for 100 per cent by the general revenues of the Province - that we will no

longer operate that facility ourselves on that basis.

The hon. member knows as well that this particular facility

is not the only one on the Burin Peninsula that is run as a museum. Others in

many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are run by local groups that get

small sustaining funding from the government. The Seamen's Museum is run as a

provincial museum, one of only two outside the capital city region, and, in

fact, people in the local area will be entering into discussion with them as to

whether or not there are ways and means where people locally, recognizing the

value of it, as the hon. member states, to the tourism traffic in the area

generally, might find some other mechanism to operate that facility without

getting the total operating cost, maintenance cost, and ongoing staffing cost

from the provincial treasury.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, on a supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, is not the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation aware that this very facility typifies the

history of this Province on the Burin Peninsula? It typifies the banking

fishery, it typifies the deep-sea trawler fishery, it typifies the loss of life

and wills, and fatherless children on the Burin Peninsula; that is what this

facility typifies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And isn't the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation aware of that? Why does he stand here today and make

light of the facility and what it means and what it symbolizes for the people of

Grand Bank and the Burin Peninsula?

Now, I want to ask the minister categorically: Will the

minister reconsider the decision today to close out entirely the Seamen's Museum

in Grand Bank, and at least consider making it a seasonal facility, opening in

the Spring and closing in the Fall when the tourism season ends? Will he at

least go back today and reconsider that for the benefit of the employees at the

facility, for the people of the town of Grand Bank, for the people of the Burin

Peninsula -

MR. TOBIN: The schoolchildren.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and for those schoolchildren who have

taken up a very active program there this year, which has taken off like

wildfire. Will the minister reconsider that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just with respect to the

preamble from the hon. member, I

don't believe, in anything I have said in my previous two answers, that I did

anything to make light of the significance of the museum in Grand Bank, so I

would just like to correct that for the record.

We recognize the significance and usefulness of the facility.

I indicated in my previous answer that of all the facilities that the Province

runs 100 per cent from provincial resources and from provincial revenues, this

is the least utilized of all the facilities, and we felt that in making these

kinds of decisions, this was the one that could best withstand the closure

without having the impact that some other closures we contemplated might have

had.

The reference that the hon. member makes to some seasonal

operation, and those types of possibilities, we will certainly discuss those

with people in the local area as to whether or not some local sponsoring group

or someone else can take on some of the aspects of running that particular

museum. The immediate decision is to mothball the facility, to lay off the

permanent staff, and to move on from there. If there are other possibilities,

such as those mentioned by the hon. member, that come out of the discussions

that we will have with representatives in the Grand Bank area, then certainly,

we will look at all of those possibilities if they make sense and if they can be

handled within the financial scope of the government.

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

supplementary.

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

I am pleased to hear the minister say that he will at least

explore possibilities with the people, the council and the local heritage

society there, with some possibilities for keeping the facility. If all of the

above fails, let me ask the minister this: What is going to happen to the

artifacts that are there in that museum? Are they going to be brought in here to

St. John's and stored somewhere to collect dust? A lot of these artifacts have

been donated by people from Grand Bank, the Burin Peninsula and the South Coast,

very valuable personal artifacts. I am just wondering what the minister's plan

will be for those if, indeed, the facility never opens again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We haven't gone into the details of that particular scenario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: There is a normal process that does occur,

particularly when artifacts and parts of exhibits have been donated by

individuals. If, in fact, the decision stands that that particular facility, the

Seamen's Museum in Grand Bank, does not open again under the auspices of the

Provincial Government, and does not open again with anybody else as a sponsoring

or co-ordinating person or group to run the facility, then the normal procedure

is to offer any donated artifacts back to the individuals who donated them. If

nobody is interested, there is already a full collection of artifacts that have

been donated to the Province that are not on display at any particular point in

time in any of the exhibits, in any of the museums, that are stored looking for

opportunities to put them on display either permanently in one of the museum

premises, or on a touring basis in the Province. Those things go through a

natural course of events, and that will unfold, depending on what happens here

with the discussions with Grand Bank.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

In a paper entitled When Less Is Better: Using Canada's

Hospitals Efficiently , written for the Conference of Federal, Provincial and

Territorial Deputy Ministers and released by the minister, it is stated that

hospitals are the most expensive component of a very expensive health care

system. Furthermore, it states that 20 per cent of diagnostic tests in both the

laboratory and imaging categories are redundant or unnecessary. I ask the

minister: Has his department identified such redundant or unnecessary services

and, if so, what has his department done to address those concerns?

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

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

thank you for the question. I am familiar with the document that the hon. member

refers to.

It is true that the institutional side of health care is,

without doubt, the most expensive and costly part of the health care system. Of

the $900 million that we spend in health care in the Province, $600-plus million

of it is dedicated and spent in the institutional side, no question about that.

There is some school of thought that there could be reductions in terms of the

number of clinical procedures and tests and x-rays and blood tests, and all

these sorts of things that are ordered up. I have had, as late as last week,

detailed discussions, I can report to the hon. member, with the president of the

NLMA, Dr. Edstrom and their executive director precisely about this type of

thing. They have agreed to engage themselves, as they commenced last year, with

a TV advertising campaign directing people to think about good health and the

value of the health care system. They have agreed in principle to embark upon a

campaign of further types of educational initiatives to not only make the

general public but also to make the physicians aware of the cost it is to health

care with respect to ordering up tests and that sort of thing. They have agreed

to take some initiatives on their own to try and get a sensitivity raised, if

you like, within the medical community and within the general public as to the

relative cost of these things and to think about the appropriateness of

everything that is prescribed. I can only commend the NLMA, I would tell the

hon. member in the House, I can only commend the NLMA as a body of professionals

to take that type of pro-active approach to try and address some of the fiscal

and some of the other problems that we have in health care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Medical equipment is very expensive and constitutes a

significant part of a health care boards budget. Now people working in the

system have complained at public forums that hospitals are buying more modern

equipment and throwing out the current equipment they have even when it has a

considerable life span remaining. Now does your department monitor such

expensive purchases and do they normally do a cost analysis to determine the

best use of our resources?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the health care system at

the institutional level is run throughout the Province by eight institutional

health care boards who have significant responsibility to organize and ensure

that health care is delivered in an appropriate, effective and efficient manner.

Of course these responsible boards take responsibility for decisions they make

in terms of budgeting, in terms of capital investment and in terms of purchasing

of equipments. I can tell the hon. member this, that we are not in the habit in

Health Care Newfoundland of throwing out good equipment just for the sake of

having something better. We will replace present equipment with more effective,

more modern equipment as we have the means to do so and as the proven

effectiveness of those new pieces of equipment make sense to bring into the

system but let the hon. member be aware that the health care system is run by

responsible boards, responsible administrators, responsible administrations

doing what they deem is best and proper for health care in the Province. I have

every confidence that their decisions and their judgements are appropriate.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now cuts have gone to the point, in some instances, where

they are counter-productive. It has been brought to my attention that hospital

cleaning fluids and disinfectants are being diluted in order to save money under

those boards. That is how far strapped they are in their budgets. Now has the

minister examined the impact that this has on infections and does he approve of

this practice?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes

generalizations that make no sense. In fact, it is not a question he poses it is

a proposition that he puts forward just to, I think, get his third supplementary

in.

I don't know if anybody has ever diluted something that is

used to clean floors but if they have diluted it, let me tell the hon. member,

that it is done for the purpose for which it was intended and that it was to be

diluted. If they have to add three to one to something, that is fine, that is

probably what it is called for but the people who run health care in the

Province are not strapped to that point. If the hon. member will refer to the

statement just made by my colleague the Minister of Finance, he will find out

and he will recognize that of all the public services in this Province health

care has been elevated to one of highest priority and this government is very

sensitive to ensure that we do what is right and provide the resources that are

needed to deliver a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with

section 11 of

the Memorial University pension act it is my pleasure to table before the House

the auditors' financial statements of Memorial University of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I tried, Mr. Speaker, but my voice is too

weak to rise over the shouts and the catcalls from the other side.

Petitions

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to have

the opportunity to rise and speak to a petition signed by residents of the

District of Menihek, residents of Labrador City and Wabush.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education and

Training thinks it is funny that the people of Labrador City and Wabush have to

send their children to school in unsafe conditions. I want to tell him that

these conditions - the people in Labrador City and Wabush, the parents of these

children, don't think it is very funny. They aren't laughing about it as the

Minister of Education and Training is.

I've presented petitions before on behalf of the residents of

Labrador City and Wabush explaining the plight of the children, the dangerous

conditions that these children will have to endure in order to attend school The

response I got from the Minister of Education and Training after one petition

was that it was nonsense. Nonsense, he says. Apart from my petitions that I

presented that he called nonsense he has also received letters. As luck should

have it these parents also gave me a copy of the letters. I want to read a quote

from some of these.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training on a point of

order.

MR. DECKER: He has read something into the record which I

have to correct. At no time did I say petitions were nonsense. I did say,

though, and I will say again, that many of the statements that the hon.

gentleman is making are nonsense. The petitions are signed by people who

legitimately want to make a point to this House, but the stupid nonsense the

hon. member gets on with, that is the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Exactly right, Mr. Speaker, there was no

point of order. The Minister of Education and Training is merely attempting to

stifle the people's voice from Menihek. He doesn't want the parents to voice

their concerns in the House. Because they sent the Minister of Education and

Training letters telling him that the conditions in Labrador City and Wabush

were unsafe. I don't know if he has answered the questions in these letters, I

don't know if he has read these letters, but I want to read into Hansard what

some of these people said.

One parents said: Please come to your senses and leave the

busing system for our children the way it always has been. That is what they

said. They want the minister to come to his senses. They don't want him to

behave like the bully that he just showed that he was. They don't want him to

behave like that Attila the Hun that cuts, slashes the health care system, the

education system. Now he is at the busing system in Labrador City. They don't

want him to do that. They want their busing system to be maintained in the

manner that they have built it to be over the last thirty years.

Another parent says in her letter to the minister that: it is

outrageous this cut, outrageous, and with the sidewalks not cleared our children

must walk on the roads with visibility and road conditions at times in our town

very dangerous. Mr. Speaker, I've said that in my petitions when I've presented

petitions that the road conditions were dangerous. The loud, inefficient

Minister of Education and Training, the slasher of the bus system, the man who

wants to cut the guts out of the busing system in Western Labrador, Mr. Speaker,

he has said, it's nonsense. The minister thinks it is funny, he makes a joke of

it but I will tell you what another parent said to him in another letter and see

if he will laugh at this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, he thinks it is funny. I

will ask him to respond to what Cathy Strangemore said about it in a letter to

the minister that he probably hasn't even read yet because he thinks it is

nonsense. She said: Would you be able to sleep at night knowing what you had

done caused a child to lose a hand or a foot or even their life because they had

to walk to school at -30C, or do you even care? Well, we do and we want our bus

system left as it already is.

Now, this is a mother saying that. Now, that Minister of

Education and Training, thinks that this is nonsense. I want that minister to

write her a letter because if he doesn't write her, I am going to show what he

said. I am going to give her a copy of Hansard showing that he thinks, what I

said is nonsense.

MR. DECKER: Make sure you tell them the truth, won't you?

MR. A. SNOW: It is the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. DECKER: No!

AN HON. MEMBER: What!

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Education and Training

pointed out that I do not have leave to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no leave.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned to become

involved in this motion, I was going to wait for the minister to stand up, but

when the Minister of Education and Training denied a couple of seconds leave to

the Member for Menihek to present a petition and to speak on behalf of the

parents of little children who are forced to walk to school in 30C temperature

in Western Labrador in this Province, when the Minister of Education refused to

give the member an opportunity to present a mother's concerns which have been

outlined in a paper, then I felt obligated to stand and support, not only the

member and the parents and the children, but to try to support democracy that

this minister is now trying to deny to the member of the Legislature in

presenting a cause on behalf of little children in this Province.

Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, for the government to attack the

bus services throughout this Province and in particular in Labrador, to deny

children a way to school in the morning, to force children to walk for - how

long does it take?

MR. A. SNOW: 1.6 kilometres.

MR. TOBIN: - 1.6 kilometres, little children in Grade -

MR. A. SNOW: Kindergarten.

MR. TOBIN: - Kindergarten, five years old, Mr. Speaker,

before daylight, in -30C̊ temperature in this Province. For that minister and

this government to force five-year-old children to walk in -30C temperatures

before daylight, Mr. Speaker, could only be done by a heartless, brutal crew,

Mr. Speaker, and if there were ever a heartless, brutal, cold, callous uncaring

group put together, there is only one person who could have picked them and

that's the Premier of this Province, because they are there together, and then

today we wonder.

My colleague, the Member for Grand Bank asked questions, and

I share with him as a member from the Burin Peninsula. We wonder why this

government would cut the Seamen's Museum in Grand Bank, wonder why they would

close it, wonder why they would take that away from the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is a museum that epitomizes hard work, seafaring individuals,

many of whom lost their lives providing for the people of this Province and

their families, orphans and widows walking the streets of the Burin Peninsula,

Mr. Speaker, the least they could see was the museum that was constructed to a

large extent in memory of their husbands and fathers and children and

grandfathers. And this minister and this government saw fit today to attack the

orphans, the widows, the children, the families and the people who earn their

livelihood from the sea, and we wonder then why they would do that.

Mr. Speaker, it is not hard to figure it out, when they send

five-year-old children before daylight in the morning on the streets to walk a

distance of 1.6 kilometres, in -30C temperatures, to go to school in this

Province. It is not hard to figure out what is happening. It is not hard to

figure out why they would do it to a museum when they would do that to these

innocent little children. But this government will have to answer us one of

these days. They will have to answer to the people of this Province. They will

have to answer to the people of the Burin Peninsula. They will have to answer to

the people of Labrador, the South Coast, the West Coast, the Northeast Coast,

and every other part of this Province, because people will not continue to

accept this callous treatment.

The people of Bell Island stood in unity, sent a message loud

and clear that they would not permit this government to kick them into the

ground, to destroy their community. They were not going to stand by and allow it

to happen. They came to this Legislature, and the government knew full well that

these people were serious and meant business, and they changed their mind.

I would think that one of these days you are going to see a

lot of people come to this Legislature and demand their rights, and if the

people of Labrador West were close to this Assembly, I am sure they would be

here as well. Why? What minister there - I am sure the Minister of Education

would not want his children or grandchildren, at five years of age, to have to

walk 1.6 kilometres in -30C temperatures, to go to school.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wouldn't care.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he would care. He wouldn't do it to his

own.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: Nobody withdrew it, so he must have it.

Nobody said no.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this government will have to

answer to the people of this Province sooner or later. They will have to answer

to the people of Labrador West, the daily presentations of petitions and

letters.

Here is another letter to Mr. Decker from a parent in

Labrador that says: Our children are the ones who will suffer the most. Children

living within 1.6 kilometres from school having to walk every day in these

extremely cold temperatures is utterly ridiculous. Please come to your senses,

Mr. Decker, and leave the busing system for our children the way it always has

been. `Please come to your senses' is what the parents in Labrador are begging;

come to your senses.

Another letter says: The children are the adults of the

future, and we should be looking at a way to protect them, not putting them in

more danger than necessary. We hope these changes will be revisited, and the

changes made in the best interest of the children. We want a positive reply.

It says: Mr. Decker, would you be able to sleep at night,

knowing that what you have done caused a child to lose a hand or a foot, or even

their life, because they have to walk to school in -30C, or do you even care?

Well, we do, and we want our bus system left as it is.

Mr. Speaker, another parent states: Because of being in the

North, with daylight saving time, it is dark when my son goes to school in the

morning. Now, it will be dark when he returns in the evening, because he has to

walk.

That's what is being said to this minister: You are forcing

my five-year-old child to leave home in the dark, in -30C temperatures, and you

force him to walk home after school in the dark in the same -30C temperatures. I

don't even know if the minister is going to provide adequate lighting for them.

Maybe because of the MOGs they will force the council to have to turn out some

lights down there. The children may not even have lights.

Another parent writes to Mr. Decker and says: If you all

think about doing something with the buses, come to Labrador City and actually

experience on hand what it is like to walk in winter conditions.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the people of Labrador are saying

to this minister. That is what the people of Baie Verte district, from a

community up there, as I saw last night on television, said to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation: If you are concerned about winter conditions

and what has happened as a result of lay-offs of government employees, if you

are concerned about that, come to our area, get on the bus and we will show you

what is happening as a result of your cutbacks. That's what is being said, Mr.

Speaker, by people all around this Province.

I wonder when this government is going to come to their

senses, when this government is going to do something about the hardship they

are creating. Today, in a Ministerial Statement by the Minister of Education, we

saw $3.9 million coming out of school boards, and the minister gets up and says:

Well, now, we have something going on here. The fiscal year of the school is

sometime in June. Mr. Speaker, I thought this statement today was dealing with

the fiscal year of the government, not the school year, Mr. Speaker, but the

year of the government. That is the kind of conniving that this government gets

on with, that is the kind of conniving that this minister gets on with, Mr.

Speaker.

There is $10 million cut from education; social services

again, when we talk about the cutbacks in Labrador. Is that what this government

is all about? Today, we have seen every single sector of this government

attacked because they wanted to buy water bombers, and where did the water

bombers go this summer? Out to Alberta and some of them probably haven't come

home yet. They spent the whole year in Alberta fighting forest fires. And today,

the children of Labrador are going to school in minus thirty degree

temperatures, on foot, to pay for these water bombers.

There was $7 million spent on Marble Mountain, Mr. Speaker,

and there are people going to bed hungry in this Province so that the Premier

and Mr. Trudeau can slip down that slippery slide from top to the bottom, $7

million while there are people starving in this Province. And the minister had

to come in today and slash the Budget. Here he comes, Mr. Speaker, the man who

shut down the museum in Grand Bank, which epitomizes the hard work of the

fishing people of this Province, people who have devoted their lives to what

this Island was built on.

The minister can sit over there and smile all he likes, he

can smirk all he likes, Mr. Speaker, but that museum was put there as a tribute,

as former Premier Smallwood said as he opened the doors when that was brought

down from Expo-67 and put in Grand Bank - was it Czechoslovakia?

AN HON. MEMBER: Czechoslovakia.

MR. TOBIN: And, Mr. Speaker, this minister today shut it

down. It was built as a monument to people who lost their lives. the poor men

who went down.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Blue Wave and the Blue Mist .

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the Blue Wave and the Blue Mist .

I remember well the night the Blue Mist was lost. Members of my own

family were in a boat next to her, in a dragger next to her. They got towed in

the next morning and had to light a fire on the deck to try to burn the ice away

to get at the winch. I know all about it, but the other men weren't so lucky,

they were not there to get towed in. They went to the bottom that night. And

there is tribute paid to them in that museum, and there is tribute paid to the

members of the Blue Wave in that museum.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that he is on a

petition, and he is `by leave', and that he should keep his remarks relative to

the prayer of the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think this is funny at

all.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education thinks it is

funny.

MR. TOBIN: I was speaking on behalf of the petition but I

got sidetracked, I let my emotions - because I am from the Burin Peninsula, I

know what happened on the Burin Peninsula, and I know what that museum meant to

the people of the Burin Peninsula. At the same time, the Minister of Culture or

whatever he is called, `old slasher' himself, who closed the museum, began to

laugh, Mr. Speaker, began to smirk, and it irritated me to know that he was over

there grinning about the closure of a museum that was built and was put there,

Mr. Speaker, to commemorate what happened.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Education and the

Government House Leader want me to clue up, I shall do it. But I support the

petition -

AN HON. MEMBER: So ably presented by your colleague.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was.

- and I would ask the Minister of Education to reconsider, to

do something for these little children who have to walk to school in the morning

in -30C temperatures, I am serious. No, I am serious. I ask you to do something.

MR. DECKER: We know you're serious.

MR. TOBIN: But why would you do that to these little

children? Don't you think it is rather cruel? Don't you think it is callous,

uncaring? I never knew you were that type of an individual but lately I am

beginning to think you are, that you couldn't care less about these little

children, you couldn't care less about anyone. So I ask you to change your mind

and do what needs to be done. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a fairly ambitious agenda today and just for the sake

of having it done but in the hope that we will not need to do - let me simply

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

On motion, the House not to adjourn at 5:00 p.m., carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the House to

go into Committee, and the proposal is that we deal with Orders 11 through 17 on

today's Order Paper and I will take them in the order in which they are - no, I

am sorry, if we could let Order 11 stand until I can have a word with my

colleague, the Minister of Finance, because there was a question by the Member

for Mount Pearl about that. Start with Order 12 if we could and go through to 17

and then my friend, the Member for Grand Bank and I shall have put our heads

together behind the Speaker's Chair before we conclude that discussion and then

we will see where we go from there. So I hope we will not need to sit late and

certainly, I have no desire to be here any longer than we need to, to deal with

the business to be dealt with. Before you put us into Committee, Sir, would you

call - I am sorry?

MR. SULLIVAN: We have a co-operative House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I am glad they have a co-operative House

Leader on the other side, I say to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, and if

only his colleagues would co-operate with the co-operative House Leader, all

would be well.

Would you be good enough please, Mr. Speaker, to call motions

5 through 9. Those are leaves to introduce draft bills.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 49)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 45)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," carried. (Bill No. 46)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting Provincial Offences," carried. (Bill No. 47)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," carried. (Bill No.

48)

On motion, Bill Nos. 49, 45, 46, 47, 48 read a first time,

ordered read a second time, presently by leave.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, would you please call Order

12, that is Bill No. 7. We were in the midst of a debate on that yesterday. I am

not sure who had the floor, but it doesn't matter, whoever wants it can have it

again, of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 7,

An Act Respecting The Revision

And Consolidation Of Subordinate Legislation.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, I had a chance to speak on this particular bill in

Committee only for a couple of minutes before we adjourned the House at 4:58

p.m. But let me go on to say, for the benefit of some people who are sitting in

the galleries, what this bill is about.

There are 441 acts that govern all the operations of

government, and there are some 2,358 rules of regulations associated with those

acts. What government is attempting to do here with this piece of legislation is

simply this. They want to repeal all of those regulations on a particular day,

and then, the next day, re-enact only the ones they see fit. And they want this

House to pass this particular piece of legislation without any knowledge of

which regulations will be lost or which ones will be kept.

Now, government regulations impact, dictate, behaviour within

the workplace, behaviour within society, from occupational health and safety

dealing within fish plants, workers' compensation, how the Auditor General's

office is run, regulations associated with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador,

regulations associated with the running of hospitals, Newfoundland and Labrador

Medical Association, etcetera, and the list goes on.

Now, what government is asking us to do right here today is

to say that they have indicated that there are 1,152 regulations of those

2,300-and-some change that are going to remain intact. But there 1,088 sets of

regulations that government want to wipe off the books without public debate in

this House of Assembly. They have not indicated which regulations will go, or

the means by which they will be judged on how they will go.

Let's take, for example, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. Can he stand on this particular piece of legislation and

indicate to the House by what standard is it going to be judged within his

department that sets of regulations that govern his department - by what

standard will those regulations be thrown out? What regulations will be thrown

out? Will it be regulations dealing with the labour code of the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: These are legitimate questions. The

minister can't look at me and say: Don't be so foolish, when they haven't even

indicated to the public Chamber what regulations - I don't know because I

haven't been given the information. So any question is a legitimate one, I

propose to the minister. What regulations will go? Will it be ones dealing with

workers' compensation, the act governing workers' compensation, and the set of

rules and regulations associated with it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It will not. What about the Occupational

Health and Safety division? Will there be a streamlining to make it more

business-friendly?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I understand. What I'm asking is, what

rules and regulations will be repealed, taken off the books, in your department?

If the minister gets a chance, and if he wishes to, he can stand. But by the

information that he is giving me it doesn't seem that the minister is really

aware of what regulations will go in his department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? In your department. So if it is

insignificant in Employment and Labour Relations, that means that the majority,

then, of the rules and regulations will be coming from other departments.

Let's talk to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Can he say today what rules and regulations will be repealed

within the Department of Works, Services and Transportation? Do you know? Are

you aware of them?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I'm aware of every single one. I can't

repeat them off by heart, but I'm certainly aware of them. I have been a full

participant in the (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Right. How many sets of rules and

regulations would you say, then, off the top of your head, seeing that you are

aware of them and participated - you are aware of every single one, you stated.

Of those 1,088 sets of rules and regulations that will be repealed, from rules

and regulations governing how departments govern themselves, how many of those

will come from your department?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) they are not all going to be

repealed (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I know that. I've indicated that before

you came in. Right now there are about 2,300 sets of rules and regulations

within departments. There are 1,088 going to disappear altogether. What I'm

trying to get a handle on are what are the rules and regulations or sets that

will disappear. I have no idea. What I'm being asked as a member of the House

here is to give the government a blank cheque, to say; Yes, we agree totally

with deregulation so go ahead and do what you are going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you be able to table a list so we

could have a look at it? So in the sets of rules and regulations in Works,

Services and Transportation - because I know there are significant in your

department - would you say that of that 1,088 that are going to be repealed,

would we look at probably 200 to 300 sets of regulations, maybe more?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let's just say - I'm not going to hold you

to whatever guess you make. Can you give me a ball park figure?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Two hundred to 300.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: John, some of them licencing with the

Public Utilities Board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Boys, do you want to get up? Do those

fellows want to get up? Let me ask the Minister of Health then, seeing that he

is in his seat, rules and regulations governing your Ministry. Are you aware of

what sets of rules and regulations will be repealed, not to be brought back

after December 31 of this year, dealing with your department? Have you been,

like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, fully aware of each

one, completely a participant in the process by which they will be repealed,

decision maker on which ones will go? Or has it been somebody else in your

department?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the House

Leader outlined the process that was taken to review all of the regulations that

were in place in government, the 2,100-odd or whatever it is. The regulations

that were of a routine nature were dealt with upon recommendation of the

commissioner by routine committee of Cabinet.

Where there was a recommendation by the commissioner that had

policy implications, they came to the department, to my deputy and to myself,

and we reviewed what our response would be. If we felt that the commissioners's

recommendations were something we could concur with we would agree. If not, we

would put forward a position that was different. Then it would go to full

Cabinet, as it did with other departments, for an ultimate decision as to

whether or not the regulation would be not re-enacted or whether or not it

should be re-enacted. Generally these were cases where there was a differing of

views between the regulatory reform process and the Ministry.

To the extent that there was a change in policy on any

regulation of significance that was not dealt with at the routine level, they

came to the minister directly through his officials. A considerable number of

them I'm fully aware of what it meant to re--enact or not re-enact. I'm assuming

that the same process took place in other departments.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) person that I have met in my

entire life who enjoys so much to hear themselves talk, it has to be the

Minister of Health. I asked him a simple question, Mr. Chairman. Was he aware of

the regulations that would be repealed in the Department of Health? He had to

get up and give me an explanation of the process. I'm fully aware of the

process. What I'm trying to get at, I say to the Minister of Health, is that if

you are, would be so willing to table the rules and regulations that the

commissioner suggested to be repealed? So that all members of the House can have

the benefit of doing a full analysis. So that all members of the House can have

the benefit of seeing what the impact of such a repeal of rules and regulations

will be on the constituents that they represent. Will you as the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Works, Services, and

Transportation just indicated that he would do it. The reality is will you

afford me the same benefit that you have as a member? Will you give me as the

Member for the District of Kilbride the same benefit so that I can see what the

implications of repealing certain rules and regulations will be upon the

constituents who I represent?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have equal access to every regulation

of government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: He must be drinking something. Whatever it

is I don't want any of it, I can assure you of that, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Health is quite correct. I have access to

every rule and regulation of government, and I have them all up in my office.

How else would I know exactly the numbers we are talking about? But that is not

the question I asked. Would he table in the House -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: He loves to hear himself talk.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I want the same benefit that you have

as an elected member.

I have all the rules and regulations in my office right now.

What I do not have access to is the information that has been provided to you,

and you only, as a Cabinet minister, on what rules governing your department

will be repealed forever and a day without having the benefit to study the

implications and the impact of them. People living in Kilbride on Donovans Road,

or on Cowan Avenue, or in Brookfield Estates, deserve the same privilege as the

constituents that you represent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have that right.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. Well why do I, as a member, not have

that information?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can have every regulation you wish

today, and you will see the ones that are being reenacted in a consolidated

form.

MR. E. BYRNE: So, what you are saying is that you want

me, as a member of the House, to say to you, as part of the government: Yes, we

trust you, we will give you the blank cheque on this piece of legislation that

you want. We will give it to you unequivocally, without asking any questions,

and then after the fact - not before, but after the fact, I say to the Minister

of Health - then, after the rules are made, the implications are in place for

people, people's lives are impacted, now I don't know whether negatively or

positively, it is after the fact that I will have to get the information. Not

correct, Mr. Chairman, not the way of doing things, not the way that we should

be operating in this Legislature.

Let's take occupational health and safety in the workplace,

and government talks about reviewing, deregulating all of government, making it

more friendly to the business climate. Philosophically at that level I don't

have a problem with it, but what I do have a problem with is not being given the

information to know what the implications will be, and how they will impact

either upon the worker in the workplace or upon the employer in the workplace.

That is what I have a problem with, and why government won't produce it, that is

their own answer, that is up to them only, but they will answer some day, and

that day is coming sooner than later, I say, Mr. Chairman.

With that, I am operating under leave, I will sit down. I

will have another chance to get up in ten minutes if there is an intervening

speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take up a little bit where the previous

speaker left off on this bill because what we are talking about here is a whole

series of sets of so-called regulations which are actually subordinate

legislation and are very powerful. They have the same force as legislation

because they are the law of the land when it comes to the topics which they are

designed to regulate. They are only called regulations because that is just a

legal term referring to what is actually subordinate legislation. It has the

same force as legislation, has the same legal effect. Obviously it is subject to

the legislation. If it contradicts the legislation, the legislation prevails,

but other than that it is a very powerful instrument. It is a powerful

instrument of government because the government, as the Minister of Justice, the

Government House Leader said yesterday, the government can, in fact, by Order in

Cabinet, for the most part, change them at any time. Now, certain regulations or

certain subordinate legislation is made by a board or other authority with the

approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and in some cases the minister

is entitled to make regulations. The minister can make rules and regulations

within a particular department.

They are very powerful instruments, and while the government

has the power to change these things piecemeal - each and every regulation can

be changed - they have to be published, and if the government intends to

repeal... If the government intended to repeal the occupational health and

safety regulations, anybody reading the Newfoundland Gazette , which I am

sure all hon. members read every Friday, could see that an Order in Council was

made repealing the occupational health and safety regulations and there would be

an uproar, but if the government passes this legislation here and says: All

regulations and all supporting legislation which is not re-enacted by March 31,

is gone, no one really knows what's gone and no one knows what's left and that's

the problem that has been pointed out by a number of people.

Now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has

made a very fine suggestion here today, he is being most reasonable in his

approach to this and I commend him for it. He has offered to table a list of the

regulations from his department that are going to be repealed, because then we

could look at it and say: okay, well he is getting rid of what he said, the taxi

regulations or the trucking regulations and all those ones, that's part of the

general commercial deregulation.

Now, people have arguments about that one way or the other

but nevertheless, it is going to be transparent because the minister will say:

Here are the ones we are getting rid of and if someone wants to get them and

look at them and say: why are you getting rid of that one for that's really

important then they can say: so I would commend that to other ministers over

there because that way we would certainly be able to have a look at what's going

on.

Now the Government House Leader said yesterday and the

Minister of Health said today that many of these things are part of the routine

Cabinet Committee and said okay, we will get rid of this one, this one, this

one, this one, that's well within the guidelines that were set but there were a

number, and he didn't say how many, I don't think, he may have said a couple of

hundred that there were major policy considerations involved or major policy

decisions to be made one way or the other, and they were referred back to the

ministers for their comments and then go back to a special Cabinet Committee.

Well these are obviously the key ones, and if what we are

having going on through this process is government making major policy

decisions, then the public ought to be told in what areas they are making major

policy considerations, and that's why it is important-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) proper public consultation.

MR. HARRIS: There is no public consultation. In fact, no

public awareness of what's going on and at the end of the day you are going to

see a list of here is what's left but we won't know what's gone. Now, yesterday,

the minister made his speech, the Minister of Justice, the Government House

Leader made a speech and he said: well we will give you a list of the ones that

are there and a list of the ones that are gone but that will be done some time

next March or April, because they don't even have to Gazette them according to

this bill, they don't even have to Gazette them or put it this way, they plan to

Gazette them and the law says you are supposed to Gazette them but if they don't

Gazette them, that doesn't mean that they are not in force and they are not a

full force in effect, so it is a little, iffy, Mr. Chairman, for something as

important as legislation here and what really should happen is that Judge Noel's

Regulatory Reform Committee Report, ought to be tabled in the House, but if the

government is prepared to stand by its policy decisions, then it should also be

willing to say: Well, you know, Judge Noel recommended this but we did that

because it was our decision to do it and they are entitled to make that

decision.

Now, no one is suggesting that Cabinet doesn't have the

authority to make policy decisions in the area of regulations which are under

their power to make. Where it is under their power to make regulations, under

the various pieces of legislation and there are some 441 acts, not each of which

has regulations associated, we have no problem with that, nobody can have any

problem with that unless some specifics about a particular power but, and it's a

big but, the real issue comes down to: What are the policy considerations that

the government is making, and if Judge Noel and his Commission made a particular

recommendation, and the government is saying in Works, Services and

Transportation: Well, that's what Judge Noel recommended, we considered it and

we had a different opinion -

MR. EFFORD: That's right, that's exactly (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There is nothing wrong with that but, tell

us, let us say why, let us stand up and defend the government's position if it

needs to be defended; maybe everybody would agree with the government and

disagree with Judge Noel and his Commission -

MR. EFFORD: You are not the government.

MR. HARRIS: We are not the government no, and we are not

making the decisions, the government is making the decisions; all we are asking

is for a process that makes public, and lets the public know what decisions the

government is making and why, and if there is public criticism, well the

government has to stand it and if the public says: Well, what a wise government,

making such wise decisions, well that's to their credit as well, so what we are

looking for is a little bit of transparency and a little bit of public

discussion, if necessary, on particular policy considerations.

But when the minister said, the Government House Leader said

in the House yesterday that there were major policy considerations and major

policy decisions to be made well then let's just have it on the table as to what

these policy considerations are all about and if -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I can accept that the deregulation of

trucking was a major policy consideration but that was not a decision that was

made yesterday, that was made a couple of years ago. Some of the regulations may

still be hanging around so getting rid of them now is really part of the routine

cleaning up act. If there are major policy considerations going on now, why

isn't the Minister of Health coming into the House and saying: well we have

decided to get rid of these regulations because we think that they are

unnecessary and we think that it is time to change the policy that includes

those regulations. Then if someone wants to have something to say about it, well

and good. The government obviously would have to stick by whatever decision that

it made or defend at least, whatever decision it made unless it changed it as it

did with the Bell Island ferry rates. Now I know the minister played a role in

that and maybe he did not like the decisions that came out the other end of it

but nevertheless there was public discussion about it. There was sufficient

objection to the policy decision that had been made by Cabinet that a change was

brought about. Now no government likes to be criticized but that is the public

process that we all sign on for when we run for public office and if we are

successful in getting a majority of seats you run a government and you are

entitled to but you also get the criticism that comes with the territory.

So all I am saying and I said it on several occasions before

in the House and the previous speaker, the Member for Kilbride said the same

thing, at least we got a willingness of the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to tell us what is happening in his department, which ones are

being repealed and which ones are being re-enacted. I look forward to having a

chance to review that and examine it, as is our duty to do, as representatives

of the public to see whether there are any policy considerations that need to be

brought to public attention or brought to the attention of other members of the

House.

So those are my remarks on that. It seems apparent that there

are some major policy decisions going on. So I will take my seat and allow some

other member to speak on this issue.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, maybe if the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation would just address a concern that just arose when he

talked about there were many pieces of legislation in his department that would

be included in this Bill No. 7, the doing away of some of the subordinate

legislation. I would like to ask him if one of the pieces of legislation that he

is looking at doing away with would be the license that is required now by

truckers in order to apply to the public utilities in order to get a carrier

plate if they are expected to buy a piece of equipment in order to carry certain

items or be designated as a certain carrier? If it is, I would like to ask the

minister if he will be allowing public input into that before it is done away

with?

I am aware that several groups of people or at least one

group, have met with the minister already and have expressed great concern to me

because many of those people who have gone out and invested thousands and

thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, now find themselves, I

suppose - and I am not saying that it is wrong - but they are finding themselves

now in a market that they were not aware of what might have been there for them

when they went out and invested this money. Many of them now are echoing a

concern that they may be priced out of a job even though it might be an open

market, the minister might say it is an open market and they have every right to

compete and compete with anybody else but I say that the field has now changed.

Some of those people have gone out and thought into buying themselves a job but

now may find, because it is an open market, that they may not even be able to

compete.

So my question would be to ask the minister if he would be

kind enough to respond to that and to allow me to know if those people will have

access to the ministers here or what options they would have before this

legislation is being carried forward and taken out of the statutes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, just to answer the hon.

gentleman's question about the deregulation of the trucking industry. One of the

things that is part of the deregulation, eliminating the necessity for truckers

to have a carrier plate, in other words put it back to free enterprise. That has

been communicated to the truckers months ago. That is not something that just

happened today or a few weeks ago. That has been there on the table for quite a

number of years now but the deregulation process took place and all the truckers

were notified by my office individually. I think some 675 independent truckers

around the Province and associations were notified individually that would be a

part of the deregulation process, the final stages of the deregulation of the

whole of the trucking industry. I think it was last Thursday or Friday when a

group of truckers came in, met with me, and discussed some concerns they had

about it, but that is part of the deregulation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Exactly, but that is if everything goes

through and is finalized. That is the process that is happening.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of

Subordinate Legislation." (Bill No. 7)

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clauses 3 and 4 as amendment, carried.

Motion, that the committee report having passed the bill with

amendments, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 13. Bill No. 27.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Mr. Chairman, Clause 1 amends the Waste

Material Disposal Act basically to broaden the application of the act to include

littering. The explanatory notes attached to the bill state that Clause 1 of

this bill would amend the Waste Material Disposal Act to create a distinct

penalty for the wrong deposit of waste material in the form of litter. The

amendment would also provide for late payment fees. The bill effectively defines

unlawful littering as the deposit of waste material in a place other than a

waste material disposal site for which a certificate has been issued, or in a

receptacle or container placed or located specifically for the purpose of

collection.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to distinguish unlawful

littering as an offence then it seems to me we do not want litter lying around

in places other than waste material disposal sites or waste receptacles. We do

not want litter along the sides of our highways or in parks and the wilderness,

we do not want litter in our streets and sidewalks, public places and front

yards.

Mr. Chairman, waste material has a pretty broad definition.

It means refuse, garbage, rubbish, litter, scrap, discarded material, and it

also can be defined as any material or thing that may be a danger to the health

of human beings, animals, wildlife or fish or is of unsightly appearance.

Mr. Chairman, this is a pretty broad definition and no doubt

applies to everything from abandoned rusting vehicles, chip bags, bar wrappers,

shopping bags, fast-food containers, beer bottles, soft drink cans. It might

also apply to cigarette butts, apple cores -

MR. EFFORD: And Tories.

MR. MACKEY: And Tories, perhaps. That was said in a

Liberal context. It may even apply to pet droppings, all of which fall within

the definition of waste material.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MACKEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to get that close

to the other side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MACKEY: It is a good thing that the House does not

sit on Sundays so I wouldn't be that close either.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not raising these things to be facetious,

but I would like to rather outline my next point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, there is a point. That is reassuring.

MR. MACKEY: Yes. It will be a challenge to enforce these

provisions in the context of littering. Police officers will have the authority

to do so if they encounter littering, or if littering is reported to them.

Private citizens will have the power to stop people from littering. It will draw

attention to the issue of littering and perhaps serve as somewhat of a deterrent

to those who might otherwise consider littering.

If there are ways to accomplish the same ends through such

restrictions, some would say these alternatives are preferable. Of course, few

would defend the right to litter, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador where

litter is a serious problem. But how far will the authorities go in enforcing

these powers as they pertain to littering? Will we have convictions on what will

be considered the lesser end of the littering spectrum? If we don't, if people

are allowed to get away with dropping a chip bag or a gum wrapper without

penalty, then would this not bring the entire legislation into ill repute and

make it the subject of ridicule?

Do we have the policing capacity to enforce this legislation

to a reasonable degree? How much will it cost in administration associated with

enforcing this legislation? Will it demand the hiring of additional personnel?

What other costs are associated with this enforcement? What about the costs

associated with people appealing their convictions? What additional burden will

this place on the system? Has government determined whether these monies could

be better spent on measures other than the one under consideration here?

This bill seeks to impose penalties for an unlawful littering

offence. For this offence the fine will be $25, the first offence. For

subsequent offenses the fine will be $100. These are hefty fines. People ought

not to be littering in the first place, but they do have a right to know, and

government has the responsibility to inform them, that there are steep penalties

for littering. It is usual of course that people who are in default of payment

of their fines be imprisoned for a period of time. I don't know where they are

going to be imprisoned because we will be shutting down our correctional

centres. One can expect that if the legislation is enforced to the letter there

may be Newfoundlanders hard hit by economic downturn who will be forced into

what is in effect a pauper's prison.

I note that the government has written what may be called a

little leniency into the bill, allowing people sixty days to pay their fine and

tacking on a late payment fee of 25 per cent or 40 per cent of the original fine

if sixty days has passed. So I wonder, will the minister spell out to the House

what will happen in the case of minors who litter? Will the minister indicate

how he arrived at the fine amounts of $25 and $100? Does he calculate the

amounts by balancing the need to make the deterrent significant against the

recognition that penalties must be not unduly severe?

I note as well, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation

effectively wipes an offender's slate clean after a year has passed. Any offence

committed a year or more after the first offence is considered not a second

offence but a first offence. After a year has passed, the next instance of

unlawful littering becomes 75 per cent cheaper, although $25 will not be cheap.

These are tough measures, but I am sure the minister weighed

the fact in drafting this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act And

The

Summary Proceedings Act." (Bill No. 27)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order 14, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 28, "An Act To Revise And

Consolidate The Law Respecting Credit Unions".

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: First of all, Your Honour, I think this bill

won support from all sides of the House during debate. Secondly, it was

referred, as the Order Paper notes, to the Government Services Committee which,

of course, has representations from both sides in the House, and my recollection

of the committee's report is that it was a clear report, and they came back and

said no question or objection to the bill. That being so it might be

appropriate, given the length of the bill, to take the clauses by bunches. After

all, there are 251 separate clauses and we will be here all week if Your Honour

goes one, two, three, four, five. I put that out as a suggestion, if hon.

members opposite agree.

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law Respecting

Credit Unions." (Bill No. 28)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 15, Bill No 10, please, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco

Control Act," (Bill No. 10) - an important bill.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A few comments in second reading I know I addressed to the

minister, that he addressed some adequately and some not so adequately. I guess

the minister must have been drinking too much of the severely diluted

disinfectants they are using now. I guess it is part of the overall scenario in

health care. We have seen cutbacks. Instead of doing the slicing in the budget

of $2.9 million now, what they are going to do, hospitals are out diluting down

beyond the normal dilutions, double the dilutions now in disinfectants in

cleaning hospitals. Workers in his department -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you get such foolishness?

MR. SULLIVAN: From people in your employ, people at

public forums, on public record. The media were there. I have it on tape, I have

it in written forms, by employees employed directly in hospitals who have

indicated that they are instructed now to dilute down below the normal dilution

levels for disinfectants and cleaning. That could increase the risk of

infections and be counterproductive to our health care system. That is what I

was told, and if the minister wants to know off the record I will tell him what

public meeting - there were media there - where it was, in what location, what

boards were involved and so on, if the minister would like to know, and see what

he can do about it to ensure that the safety and the health of people in

institutions here in the Province is protected, I say to the minister, and not

to tell them they don't know how to read. That is what he said, basically, they

do not know how to read the dilutions that are marked there, if it is supposed

to be three to one; that is what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was at a meeting out in central -

western Newfoundland region; I don't know but both of it came up. There was one

instance in particular I remember.

I say to the minister, too, while we are on the health issue

here, they are basically throwing out equipment that has a life span left on it,

so we will compete for new, expensive equipment. The boards around this Province

now are going to be competing against each other for buying equipment.

Whoever can get the Tim Horton franchise now gets a new piece

of equipment, whoever can get the MacDonald's franchise, gets another piece of

equipment and the rich will get richer. Institutions and other hospitals that do

not have the ability to compete and are more rural, won't be able to compete

because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No they are not. - because what Ms. Peachy

said on radio about the Tim Horton franchise: If we do make a lot of money we

might be able to share some with other hospitals. That's the statement that was

quoted on CBC Radio when I listened, so in other words, the hospital that has

the largest numbers, the most services is going to have the cadillac service and

other hospitals are going to have an inferior service.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Are you against hospitals generating

additional revenue (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell the minister what I am against

right now very unequivocally. I am against hospitals and government taking over

private business and I am against Tim Horton franchises and Wendys and

MacDonalds being nationalized and state run, that's what I am against and the

minister stated -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible), get in the real world

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the minister should wake up and smell

the coffee, I say to the minister, that's what he should do. The minister stated

on television, donuts are tasty, delicious things. He hasn't examined it, he

should ask the Minister of Buds - Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, to do a

biochemical analysis of the contents of it and report back as to whether it is

healthy, I say to the minister. The minister said, and what a silly statement.

He said: We are promoting private business by taking something out of private

business and bringing it under the health care corporation that's directed and

run by this Province. He is cutting into and attacking private business, when

this government professes to be promoting private business in the Province. He

is going to take -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are a smooth one.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that's factual. The health care

corporation is running business, private business ran it, now the health care

corporation has it, if that's privatizing business I think you have the signals

all mixed up. That is de-privatizing and it is nationalizing business and I am

sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the way he is looking,

doesn't think that government and health care corporation should be getting into

Wendy franchises and Tim Horton's and other private businesses. Leave that to

the private sector.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) buy a paper company and

generate our own paper?

MR. SULLIVAN: I would say, leave it to private business.

Downsize government, streamline it, let private business do it, that's what I am

saying you should be doing, and don't try to sell donuts in a hospital and try

to tell us it's healthy. The reason they are doing it, I say to the minister is

because they are going to start privatizing hospitals now. The hospitals that

have the business to give the service and ones that don't won't have the

service, therefore -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) good.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has an opportunity to speak

when he gets up. - the hospitals that can't survive, that cannot meet their

budgets to have overruns, will close because they can't operate efficiently. Now

if you look at that scenario, it is my understanding and the minister can refute

if he so desires, that the Grace Hospital, the one he is going to close is one

that has always run within Budget, so in other words, we are going to close the

efficient ones and we are going to keep the inefficient ones open. Is that the

basic criteria?

Now on this bill, which is the Tobacco Control Act, and I

raised some concerns on it before and the minister gave, I must say, adequate in

some instances, explanation there and some I guess, is a matter of opinion;

things like we are going to allow cigarettes into a correctional institution, an

adult correctional institution I might add, which is hard, there are arguments

you could put on both sides, these are just some of the points there that - it

is a difficult thing to enforce and may be for what affect it might have, maybe

it is better to allow it and there is no hassle and it is easier to deal with

administratively, that's one you could probably live with. He also adds in on

the stand for fines when your license is suspended there, which I suppose if you

are selling and you are not supposed to, you deserve to get a certain penalty no

doubt and one though, that I did raise a concern about, and its pretty

broad-sweeping powers.

In other words, if you are in a store and somebody comes in

and they want to detain you, they want proof of your age and any other inquiries

they might make of you, and you may not be under suspicion, basically, of having

in your possession something that is of tobacco that is illegal, you still could

be undergoing the scrutiny and questioning and so on. It is fairly broad powers

they are given there in clause 2 and they are referred to paragraph (

g) basically of subsection 3(2) of the act there.

It is getting very general there. It might infringe upon

someone's rights in some way. I would hope it would be applied with the greatest

discretion and not try to implicate somebody who would be an innocent bystander

there. I would assume that is up to the person who is there, I guess the

investigator or the person on site, the inspector, and using their proper

judgement, which we hope they certainly would exercise and not go beyond their

powers. We are giving them fairly wide scope here in this instance.

Over all Bill No. 10 is not one that I can take great issue

against, I say to the minister. There are some points there that are dubious

whether you support it or not. People can fall on either side of that line.

There is a kind of a fine line there in instances. Nothing that I'm really going

to get hung up on and nothing that I really highly support, to be honest with

you. It is give or take a little and it is really a non-issue in some instances

there. With that I conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, on Bill No. 10.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Control Act." (Bill No.

10)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Order No. 16, Mr. Chairman, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order No. 16.

An Act To Amend The

Government Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act,

1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991, The

Memorial University Pensions Act,

Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland,

1993 And The Pensions Contributions Reduction Act, Bill No. 29.

On motion, clause 1 through 7, carried.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will have a comment.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a few comments

generally on pensions here. I guess anybody who wishes to work beyond their

normal thirty-five years, is it, to continue to make contributions until they

get their maximum accrual rate of 70 per cent. In other words, beyond

thirty-five years you aren't going to contribute any more, but it is capped at

70 per cent, I understand. You can't keep - like a teacher's pension, for

example, you can teach for thirty-eight years and get 76 per cent. You would

stop paying in benefits. No, continue to make contributions -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. It will be a change, I say to the

Government House Leader, from what is normally happening, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is my understanding that the maximum

accrual according to this now is going to be 70 per cent. That is what it is

capped at. As in, we will say, 75 per cent for hon. members here, basically, but

some as we've seen - the teachers' pension for example doesn't have a cap, I

understand. You can teach for forty years and get 80 per cent. That is my

understanding here. If you go beyond the normal thirty-five years, after

thirty-seven years for example, I would assume you are going to stop paying in

premiums. Is that the intent?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Overall, Mr. Chairman, we have a

crisis in pension funds here in this Province. We are in terrible shape. I think

we have an unfunded liability of about $1.5 billion in the public service

pension fund, about $1.1 billion in the teachers' fund I think, and under the

uniformed service another....

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will have a look. It could be. I was

accused of being backward once before.

MR. ROBERTS: Unfunded (inaudible) -

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, I know. I'm talking about unfunded

now. Yes, the unfunded liability in the public service fund as of December 1994

is about $1.18 billion in the teachers' fund, which the Government House Leader

said, and it is $1.157 billion in the public service pension fund.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) under the public plan and under

the teachers' plan.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I am looking at the unfunded liability

of the fund now. I am not looking at the assets in the fund. That is the net

unfunded portion.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. The unfunded liability portion is the

relevant one. The uniform service pension plan is $150 million.

MR. ROBERTS: The (inaudible) plan -

MR. SULLIVAN: Has $35.9, about $40 million with the small

number contributing and it is going to be less after another while. Has the

minister given any attention to the recent announcement about one of the largest

pension funds in Canada, the Ontario teacher's pension fund, that has assets, if

not the largest, then the second largest in the country, how the method of

payments was in error and William Mercer - the minister is quite aware of that

firm. Has there been any analysis now looked at to see if the pensions in this

Province have been subjected, and probably others in the county, who have been

paying improper payments under the pension fund? I ask the Government House

Leader, would this government be investigating into that in light of the recent

announcement, in the past day? He is pretending he is not listening to me.

MR. ROBERTS: I listen with one ear.

MR. SULLIVAN: One is all I want, just to listen with one

ear.

AN HON. MEMBER: If he is not listening, he is like the

rest of the people in Newfoundland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I say to the member, the people in

Ferryland district listen to me.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They did, and let us hope they will the

next time, too, I say to the Government House Leader.

Is government initiating now - Cabinet ministers may be able

to answer that. Are they initiating, in light of pensions now the recent

discovery in Ontario, one of the largest and a well-managed pension fund, the

Ontario Teachers Federation with billions of dollars in assets, tens of billions

in assets, I should say, where there were improper payments based on improper

calculations.

William Mercer, I think, handled our pension fund, too, in

this Province, and I am wondering whether or not he made the same discovery in

our Province as in Ontario? It is quite possible that in other pension funds

across the country,this could be the case, too. I understand also that all those

who were overpaid are going to be able to keep the money, and all those

underpaid are going to get their money. That is further going to increase the

unfunded liability of pension funds here in this Province, so maybe we are not

looking at a figure that is accurate. Maybe the unfunded liability is even more

enormous.

In fact, the unfunded liability in pension funds now is up to

about 70-some per cent of our total expenditures in this Province, of everything

we spend, so we have a massive unfunded liability in our pension plan, something

that needs to be addressed, I say to the Government House Leader. Maybe the

answer, I say to that minister, is not capping it here at 70 per cent, maybe let

them work for fifty years and go to 100 per cent because they are not going to

draw on it very long. Lifting the upper limits on pensions now is maybe a way to

do it like in the teacher pension fund. If you want to go on and teach longer

you can accumulate 2 per cent a year with no cap. Even though you pay more in,

you are not going to be alive as many years after you retire, if you stay for

another ten years. Maybe if you stay teaching you probably won't survive very

long anyway.

I think these are things we have to look at in managing and

proper planning of our pension funds. Even though the Government House Leader

and members are not paying much attention, I can tell you it is a major problem.

I will be looking forward - and I will send you a copy - I will be looking

forward to seeing what this government's response is on the William Mercer, who

manages our pension funds. If they did it wrong in Ontario and it has been

managed wrong, I say it is being managed wrong in this Province, too, in

calculating the payments that are due under that fund.

With that I conclude my comments on this bill, Bill 29.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I was standing

when you called the previous clause. I am not moving an amendment, so it doesn't

really matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All the clauses have been passed. We were

on the enacting clause when you stood.

MR. HARRIS: I will speak on the enacting clause, it

doesn't matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the title.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to say a few words on this legislation. It deals

with several plans, including the Public Service Pension Act, Teachers Pension

Act, Money Purchase Pension Plan and the Memorial University Pensions Act. It

seems to be designed to provide enabling legislation that would allow

individuals to top up what the government took out of the plan, those who had

already retired in 1993 and 1994 before the regulations are made. They could top

up the contributions that the employers were not making in order to enhance

their pensions.

Now, I don't know if this has really been fully explained

properly, and I don't see the Minister of Finance here in the Chamber, but it

seems to me, in looking at the plans that we just had today, the Minister of

Education, when he tabled in the House the audited financial statements of the

MUN pension plan, for example, and it is not clear how the changes in

contributions of the employers actually affects the pension that they are

entitled to, in any event. It is not clear from the legislation that even though

the employer may be contributing less to a pension - by contributing less to a

pension how that, in fact, affects the entitlement of an individual, since the

actuaries point out, as the legislation does as well, that the pension is

available based on years of service times 2 per cent of the best five years of

pensionable salary. I suppose, by reducing the salary, one may reduce or

potentially reduce the best five years. Perhaps, what is being done here but is

not clear, is suggesting that if by reducing your salary you are reducing your

best five years of entitlement, then you can go ahead and make contributions.

There appears in the audited financial statement for the year

ended March 31, 1995, a note: note 5 says that in February of 1995 the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador approved the MUN pensions purchase of

service accrual regulation which enabled employees to make additional

contributions to the MUN pension plan in respect of reduced contributions by

Memorial University for the fiscal year 1993-'94. It goes on to say that

effective March 31, 1995, 707 employees - approximately 26 per cent of those

affected by the reduction - elected to make additional contributions in

accordance with the regulations, thereby adding $1.164 million of additional

contributions committed by these employees. Now, as I said, it is not clear what

the consequences of this regulation were, whether it is to give back - to ensure

that they are entitled to collect, by way of pension, the full amount despite

the reduction in contributions by the employer. If one really looks at the

audited financial statement, it seems that the employer's contribution to the

plan in the years '94 - '95 substantially differed from year to year. In 1994,

for example, the employees contributed $4.8 million and the employees

contributed $4.6 million in 1995. In 1994 the employer contributed only $114,000

and in 1995 contributed zero to the plan. So what is going on in this pension

plan is a surplus. There is a surplus that is taking place in the MUN pension

plan, and the employer is backing off its contribution because it says, and the

actuarial evidence supports it, that the contribution from the employees,

together with the surplus that is generated by interest and the increase in the

value of the assets, can allow the employer to take a contribution holiday as

long as the plan is actuarially sound.

What seems to me is going on is that the employer is getting

the benefit of the success of the plan,

whereas the employees are not getting

any benefit whatsoever in the accrual of the plan. It seems to me an awfully

strong statement about how the balance between employers and employees is worked

out in these pension plans.

Now, I don't think the MUN pension plan is one of those that

has unfunded liabilities. The MUN pension plan is in surplus, and has been in

surplus for the last couple of years, to the extent that it allows Memorial

University, the employer, to take a holiday from payments. Now, there is an

obligation by the government to financially back the MUN pension plan. They are

guaranteed, in fact, to cover any deficiencies, so it is a matter of some

concern to the government as to what the health of the plan is, although the MUN

pension plan is not one of those that is required to meet the funding

requirements of

section 18 of the Pension Benefits Act. That has been exempted

from those provisions, so perhaps that is why it is not considered to be in a

situation of unfunded liability.

I want to make just one additional point on that, and that is

that the size of the MUN pension fund is in excess of $300 million, having grown

from $293 million at the beginning of 1995, and $262 million at the beginning of

1994, and these funds are invested in bonds and equities, for the most part, and

they are what provides the funding for the increases in benefits that accrue on

an annual basis, and that is the asset base which the obligations of the fund

come from.

This is an awful lot of money, and it is money that is, for

the most part, I would say, invested outside this Province. The $300 million,

for example, in just the MUN pension fund alone, I would say the vast majority

of that is invested outside the Province in provincial government bonds of other

in accordance with investment advice being received by the MUN pension trustees.

Very little of that, I would suspect, and it would be worth knowing exactly how

much, but very little of that would be, in fact, invested in this Province.

One of the biggest problems we have in this Province, that

has been pointed out as recently as the other day by Rex Anthony talking about

the development of local business, is access to capital and access to capital

markets for debt and for loans. Now, I am not suggesting that all pension funds

be thrown into venture capital - I am not suggesting that for a mo