April 2, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 10

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, I would like to take this

opportunity to welcome to the House of Assembly today, forty students from the following

French schools around the Province: Notre Dame du Cap, Eole St. Anne in the District of

Port au Port; Eole L'onvel in Labrador West; Eole St. Patrick in St. John's East.

These students are accompanied by their teachers: Lyc Cyr; Sonia Ross, Serge Gangon, Marie

Claude Genack, Ranya Hebner and Isabelle LeBlanc.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have visiting today twenty-seven Grade VII

students from St. Patrick's Hall, Bonaventure Avenue, accompanied by teachers: Paul

Edwards, Valerie Wells and Student Assistants: Marilyn Greene and Jason Dominic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last December this Legislature amended the Shops' Closing

Act. We did so after several unsuccessful court challenges demonstrated government's

inability to enforce the law as it existed at that time. We have now moved toward a

self-regulating retail sector, more in line with that of other Canadian provinces, thereby

removing government's regulation in this regard from the marketplace.

The amendment we put in place recognized that we live in a changing

society with changing work patterns. At the time of these changes, government made a

commitment to remain responsive to the needs of the public and to monitor the new

situation. Mr. Speaker, we are doing just that.

Government has received a number of recommendations including that of

Reverend Harvey, the Anglican Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, expressing

concern that Easter Sunday would not be a holiday under the Shops' Closing Act this year.

It has been suggested that Easter Sunday be treated in a similar fashion to that of

Christmas Day and Good Friday, which are, Mr. Speaker, holidays under the Act.

I have discussed these concerns with my colleagues in Cabinet and I am

pleased to inform the House today and through the House, to advise the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that Easter Sunday has now been designated as a holiday under

section 4(1)(

b) of the Shops' Closing Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, if the Premier would only close the stores for the rest of the

Sundays, I am sure he would make an awful lot of people in this Province very, very happy.

We still have all kinds of petitions left to present which show the

interest that the workers in this Province have in Sunday shopping, and I might say to the

Premier today, that it is nice to know that they will have Easter Sunday to spend with

their families but there are many other Sundays in the run of a year, Mr. Speaker, when

the people who work in retail would certainly like to be able spend the time with their

families. Unfortunately, because of this bill, that has not happened.

So I would ask the government to go back and review it again with a

view to closing every Sunday and not just Easter Sunday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does

he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is apparent from what has been happening throughout the Province

since January, that this policy has failed. The government statement that this was a

matter of choice has clearly gone down the tubes, when stores as large as Sobeys and

Dominion say they are opening because they have no choice, due to the competition from

places like Price Costco, as was predicted by members from this side of the House in

December, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, we welcome Easter Sunday being included as a public

holiday, but all Sundays should be included as public holidays.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to address some concerns over Community Watershed Management

that have been raised by members of the public recently.

Let me say from the outset, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no

privatization of the province's rivers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods

has encouraged and funded resource assessment work and ecosystem sustainability work.

These Watershed Management plans are pilot projects with specific time limits that must

report back to government. These organizations and ourselves set out and establish

specific roles for the stakeholder groups. There is absolutely no devolution of authority

from either the federal or provincial governments. This includes the licensing, the

establishment of quotas, setting of seasons and management of the rivers. The federal

government maintains management responsibilities and the Province maintains property

rights.

The Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods has established policy

guidelines with Community Watershed Management. They reflect how we feel Community

Watershed Management should be practised. These policies include:

To ensure that conservation and sustainability remain the priority with

all parties involved in angling;

All stakeholder will have input into the river management in an

advisory role. They will not unilaterally administer river policies;

Optimization of benefits for everybody. This means guaranteeing that

local anglers will have equal access to all rivers;

Increased enforcement; with a stronger local presence on the rivers,

stakeholders will feel more compelled to report suspicious activities. This aids in the

reduction of poaching and helps our enforcement officials in their duties.

The government intends to consult with all stakeholders on the success

of the pilot projects.

The provincial government policy guarantees access to the province's

rivers for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The Gander River Management Plan is the

only plan to have a specific pilot licence. I would like to stress, however, that this is

still a licence issued by the Province, not a privately-issued licence. The Gander River

Management plan is entering the final year of its pilot project. This means that the

specific licence will expire at the end of the 1998 season. At the end of the upcoming

season, a complete evaluation must be conducted on the efficacy of the Gander River

Management Plan including the issue of river specific licensing.

I can assure all members present today and all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, there will be no further agreements allowing river specific licences during

the remaining period of the Gander River Management Plan's operation until a evaluation by

government.

Mr. Speaker, while we recognize the significance of rural

revitalization, conservation has been and remains the paramount issue with government and

its management of the Province's rivers. In addition, the cultural and social traditions

of our residents must be safeguarded. We are very aware that Newfoundland and Labrador has

the highest resident hunting and angling participation rate of any Province in Canada. Our

government will not be put in a position that may jeopardize something that so many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to address a report from yesterday's Evening

Telegram concerning the proposed New Brunswick Salmon Management Plan. This plan has

not been released, however, the formal management plan for New Brunswick is scheduled to

be released next week.

The river with the most severely depressed returns in Atlantic Canada

was the Miramichi River in New Brunswick. Rivers in St. George's Bay on the West Coast of

Newfoundland seemed least affected and either increased or remained unchanged. With this

information in the hands of DFO, Minister David Anderson cannot logically state that

Newfoundland and Labrador anglers are permitted to retain only one salmon while New

Brunswick anglers can retain eight. Even with their management plans in place, the

disparity that will be created can have detrimental effects on our rivers.

Mr. Speaker, there is no justification for this logic. I have pressed

my concerns with Minister Anderson on a conservation basis; however, I have also stated

that if other Atlantic provinces' management plans are more generous despite similar

declines in salmon stocks, that will send a strong message to our tourism industry and

more importantly, our local anglers, who will feel like second-class citizens.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is second class to nobody on

this planet. Newfoundland has over 200 rivers with salmon which is more that 50 per cent

of the total Atlantic salmon rivers on this continent. We still have more salmon than the

rest of North America. Therefore, the management plans in other provinces should not be

any more generous in terms of numbers of fish allowed in any other area of salmon

management.

I call upon Minister Anderson to halt this report in New Brunswick and

bring in a regional and equitable approach to the entire Atlantic region.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I thank the minister for a copy of it before I came to

the House today. Of course we all in this House agree that we do not want to see the

privatization of rivers in this Province. I, like many members here I am sure, enjoy the

angling and the salmon fishing and so on, to be able to get up any day of the week and go

in and do your fishing on any river in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of

course, the valuable resource that it is to this Province, Mr. Speaker, with so much

potential for tourism and so on, we all want to protect that. I welcome that part of the

news today, I say to the minister, there is no doubt about that.

The second point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, as far as what is

happening with New Brunswick allowed to catch eight salmon - of course here in

Newfoundland it is one - it is something that we have to question right away. We also have

to question the amount of funding that the federal government supplies for research and

data so that we make the right decisions. That is the key to all of this, that we make the

right decisions so that we have a sustainable resource for years and years after that.

That is what we are all concerned about. That is why it is good that we question Mr.

Anderson on his data, that we should look for more answers to the questions of the data,

of the research done in New Brunswick as opposed to what is done here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, a funny twist to that, and I should mention here today

too, I do find it a bit strange that you can catch eight salmon in New Brunswick while you

can only catch one here. I do find it strange also, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about data

and the lack of data for fisheries resources, the same thing with a food fishery, that we

could fish in all of Atlantic Canada but we could not fish a codfish in Northern

Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know where all the data came from for that. I

would like to know what scientists told us that we could build a barrier across the

Northern Peninsula, that codfish did not swim up to the northern part of this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is all related. I say to the minister.

I welcome him talking to the minister in Ottawa and making sure he

comes to his senses, when it comes to this Province, of being equal and fair with the rest

of Atlantic Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi

have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the announcement by the minister that there will be no

privatization of the Province's rivers. A lot of people in this Province have wanted

something put in writing by the government, and perhaps we should in fact include it in

legislation to make sure that there is no doubt that the community watershed management

rights would not give any rights to privatize the rivers or the rights to fish in those

rivers.

I attended a meeting in McKay's on Sunday past, Mr. Speaker, in the

minister's district, in the St. George's Bay area, where there is a great deal of interest

in the community watershed management issues. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are

those who are opposed to this - any community having any control over it - but there is a

great deal of interest in community economic control over their own economic development,

and if this can be a vehicle for that, it offers a tremendous opportunity to many of our

communities and I support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Right now we are in the discussion stage and, as I said

on Sunday, democracy can be unruly sometimes. People want to have their say, are going to

have their say, and at the end of the day the communities will decide. This House can make

sure that the privatization does not take place, but that the local community has as much

control over its own economic development as is possible.

I welcome the review of the Gander River management plan. I also

welcome some change in the federal government's attitude towards perhaps encouraging

tourists to go to New Brunswick to fish salmon instead of coming to this Province. That

must stop, Mr. Speaker, and I support the minister's efforts to get Minister Anderson to

withhold that policy and develop a proper approach for the whole Atlantic area.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au

Clair have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and thank the minister for the statement he just made. I

think that in the recent weeks there has been a great deal of confusion in this Province

between privatization and community responsibility, ownership, and management.

I live in a district where we have watershed management, and the

Sandwich Bay watershed management is certainly an example of what communities can do in

terms of developing and controlling their resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly welcome news for us to hear

this, and I think the message has to be sent out that if we are going to control our own

resources we have to have to certain flexibility, and that doesn't mean privatization.

Just to speak on the salmon quotas, it is certainly a big concern for

people all over Newfoundland and Labrador but in the last couple of years the salmon

industry has taken quite a downturn in Labrador. We have seen a number of commercial

licences taken out of the system in terms of trying to provide some conservation to the

resource, and there are still talks today of downsizing the rest of the commercial salmon

licences that are there.

What I would say is that we have had competitive quotas on our rivers,

with the rivers in Quebec just across our border, for two and three years running. We

don't want to have that quota down-scaled more, increasing competition and causing more

hardship to the outfitting industry within the area. I welcome your announcement that

there will be no privatization of rivers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me apologise first for not having a copy of a written statement to

provide to the Opposition critic, but it is a matter that only came to my attention just a

little while ago, a further update with respect to activities in the last couple of days

regarding the Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Training Institute.

It was with great dismay that I learned this morning - actually, there

were some meetings with students in our department that finished up just before I came to

the Legislature - that they were very upset that they were invited to a meeting this

morning, and it was broadcast on the lunchtime news, that was portrayed as being a meeting

with the Department of Education. Then they arrived at the Confederation Building, Mr.

Speaker, only to find out that it was a meeting that was organized by the Opposition

Party. The students themselves were very upset. It was advertised and promoted to them as

a meeting with the Department of Education of which I had no knowledge, was not aware.

Mr. Speaker, the quote that I might bring to the attention of the

House, from the noon day news - I did not hear this myself, but I have a transcript - is

basically a student suggesting that, `they want us to cause an uproar. You are talking

about people who want to just basically put something back on the Liberals.' Mr. Speaker,

that is a student who was called to a meeting and was told that the meeting was with the

Department of Education, came expecting - because we had told them yesterday, we were

working at getting them new placements for their courses. They came to a meeting under

false pretences, only to find out that they had a group trying to get them to make an

uproar and make the Liberals look bad.

Another student, Mr. Speaker, dropped by the office to drop off a

letter to me indicating that, `I feel, personally, that there is no need of myself or

anyone else meeting with the Opposition because they are using the whole situation as a

political tool. I fully believe that your department will ensure our education will

continue.

Mr. Speaker, I bring it to the attention of the House and would gladly

welcome an opportunity for the hon. member to apologize for misuse of the position. I

believe it is a gross misuse of our offices for anyone - if I were to call anybody over an

issue and suggest that I was representing somebody else, or that I was the government and

you should come and meet with me, that is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that over the

years has led to politicians generally having a bad name and being generally accepted by

some people as being sleazy.

Mr. Speaker, that speaks of it, for students who are in a time of great

stress and duress, who are very concerned, waiting for a call from the Department of

Education as to where they will continue their training, to get a call saying, this is the

Department of Education inviting you to a meeting at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, and

to show up to find it is only a rallying call for the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, I do not mind the ignorance of the minister for not

supplying us with a copy. He was sitting here with me, prior to the House opening, and

never had the decency to tell me he was about to make a statement, let alone he did not

have one. So, we will leave that part.

As far as his colleagues go, Mr. Speaker, they know absolutely nothing

about what is happening. Now, I will tell this House - if the minister is going to take

this route, that is fair enough by me because now the nest is open. Now I will tell the

truth.

The two students who made the comments outside were the two that argued

with the forty who asked for a meeting with me. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition did

not - and I will say it in this House fifty times - organize a meeting for this morning.

As a matter of fact - and you had better talk to your buddy who started all this - when I

went out into the lobby -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You start it and we will finish it. When we went out

to speak with the forty students today, Mr. Speaker, two or three were upset and went to

speak to the media. I said: I am going upstairs. I am available if anybody wants to speak

to me.

As far as this meeting is concerned, I do not know - they did come

upstairs, Mr. Speaker, and two or three went out and talked to the media. So, Mr. Speaker,

in essence, the Opposition did not organize this meeting. The Opposition did not organize

a meeting this morning. As a matter of fact, I went out and told the students: I have

nothing to do with this meeting. I am going to my office. So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is

lying.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The Chair very distinctly heard the hon. the Member for Baie Verte

accuse the minister of lying. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SHELLEY: I certainly will not, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Baie Verte, for the second time, to

withdraw his comments.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, and

the way that the minister has raised his question today, I will not withdraw the

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for -

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible). Come on, start telling the truth, Premier.

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

Hon. members are aware of the rules of the House, and hon. members are

well aware that it is unparliamentary to refer to a member as a `liar' or to accuse him of

lying.

The Chair has asked twice and will now, for the third time, ask the

hon. the Member for Baie Verte, to withdraw his statement; otherwise, the Chair will have

no choice but to name him.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to apologize to the Speaker, for this today; this

is certainly not something that I ever thought I would have to do in this House of

Assembly in the five years I am here. The truth will come out, Mr. Speaker. I was just

accused, in a statement by this minister, that he heard on VOCM, on the spur of the

moment, from two people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: If that is all - Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor?

If that is all the minister has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is not finished.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, who has the floor?

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

MR. J. BYRNE: He is out of order. The Government House Leader is

out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked the hon. the Member for Baie Verte if he would

withdraw the statement. He is waiting for the member to withdraw.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to stand by what I said here today. I

apologize to the House for having to say that but, Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Your Honour has to name the

hon. gentleman first.

MR. SPEAKER: It is unfortunate and the Chair regrets that he has no

choice but to name the hon. member, Mr. Paul Shelley.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: In line with that, Mr. Speaker, and in keeping with the

fact that I regret that I have to do it, too, I have no other choice but to move that the

hon. gentleman be expelled from this House for the remainder of this sitting day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members have heard the motion. All in favour,

`aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the Member for Baie Verte to remove

himself from the Chamber.

MR. FRENCH: They are looking after John Woodrow. How much is he

(inaudible). How much do you owe John Woodrow, Premier?

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Conception Bay South has

suggested in the House, across the floor a moment ago, as I am sure he will acknowledge,

as he is an honourable gentleman; he repeated the words which were directed at the

Minister of Education. He said the words: The Minister of Education has lied, behind his

colleague who repeated them earlier. He is now making other allegations which, of course,

I am certain he won't make outside the House. He is alleging that the individual in

question, I think the quote is: How much money is the Premier or members on this side into

this gentleman for?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to withdraw that

allegation, and to withdraw his earlier statement in which he joined and echoed his

colleague in saying that the Minister of Education has lied. These kinds of comments

cannot be allowed to remain unchallenged because they lead to a reduction of decorum in

the House, and the inability of the House to function in the way it should.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was sitting in my place and I didn't hear any reference on what the

Premier has stated. It is not a point of order, it is a matter of

interpretation, and it

is not a breach of the rules of this House.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the hon.

gentleman did make certain accusations across this House with regard to a gentleman. The

Premier has said that he heard him, and I concur with the Premier that he did hear him

say, behind his colleague, that the Minister of Education was lying. In order to clear the

matter up, the hon. gentleman should do one of two things. He should stand in his place

and withdraw those kinds of comments, or he should walk outside the House and make them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I distinctly heard the Premier say that I said: How much money did he

give him? That is untrue. I never said any such thing. I am sure if you check Hansard you

will find that out. I guess what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If

the Premier can stand in his place and say whatever he likes, then that is fine. I guess

the same rules in here apply to me that apply to him. I did not say what I have been

accused of saying, so the Premier should withdrawn his remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong this but the

fact is, the member opposite - and he has not addressed this - very clearly said, and I am

sure that Hansard will have recorded it and perhaps we will even hear it on tape, very

clearly shouted out: He's right - words to that effect - that the Minister of Education is

a liar. He then went on in heckling later on, raised questions about, and I am sure people

in the gallery even could hear, it was so loud: How much are you into him for? Words to

that effect.

If the member is saying he did not make those latter statements, I will

accept the member's statement, but the member has not addressed his words in which he

called the Minister of Education a liar. I would ask him, as an hon. member, to deal with

that now.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier already has changed his statement from the first time. I

would suggest, too, that it is a matter of

interpretation what was said. Hansard should

show what was said. Maybe the Speaker would take it under advisement and report back

later. Another option is to recess and find out exactly what was said. Because I am sure

if the Speaker had heard that he would have taken the necessary action at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear the comments which are being referred to, but I

will ask the Member for Conception Bay South, if in fact he did make that statement, to

withdraw. The Chair will, in fact, check with Hansard. If in fact the hon. member accused

the minister of lying, I will ask him to withdraw. If he says he did not make the

statement, the Chair will check with Hansard later.

Does the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South wish to make a

statement?

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I did call the Minister of Education a

liar, and I certainly won't deny that. I will withdraw that remark, okay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: But, while I am on my feet, I believe the Premier also

owes an apology in this House as to what he accused me of saying, because I did not say

that, Mr. Speaker. I did say that I called the Minister of Education a liar, I certainly

did, so I will withdraw that remark. But the rest of what I said, I certainly will not

withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the hon.

gentleman opposite has provided a good example, I believe, and I want to acknowledge his

generosity in first of all admitting that in fact that he made such a statement. Mr.

Speaker, there was a momentary lapse. There was a lot of confusion, I can understand that,

and it took him a moment to recall it. I want to acknowledge his graciousness in

withdrawing it.

Mr. Speaker, if I have in any way misinterpreted or misheard any other

thing that he may have said or not said, I take the hon. gentleman's word that he has not

called into question the integrity of any member of this House, because indeed I know him

to be right in his assessment that only men of integrity and women of integrity occupy all

seats on both sides of the House, and I thank him for his gracious apology given today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stood in his place today and

accused the Member for Conception Bay South of making a statement which was two-fold. He

said the Member for Conception Bay South called the Minister of Education a liar. He stood

in his place and apologized for it and withdrew it.

The Premier also said that he made the comment that he asked him how

much he was being paid, and how much money he received. Now the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, it is not the words.

I expect now for the Premier to be a man about it and stand in his

place and withdraw that remark, and apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, let it be said for those of us on

this side of the House that I would be proud to stand and either be a man or be like a

woman about it and simply tell the truth. Mr. Speaker, we believe in equal values on this

side of the House.

I say to the member that if the member opposite has said he has made no

such allegation then I fully accept it. If I have caused him any distress in hearing him

suggest, which I am sure Hansard may have also misinterpreted, and half the gallery of the

House misinterpreted, the suggestion: How much are you into him for? If I have heard that,

Mr. Speaker, and it was not said, I accept the hon. member's clarification. And I again

accept, Mr. Speaker, with great joy, his apology given to the Minister of Education who is

a man of integrity, a minister without equal in terms of his duties in the pursuit of

quality education in Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The comments made by the hon. Member for Conception

Bay South and by the hon. the Premier are quite acceptable to the Chair.

The Chair had called Oral Questions when the comments were made and the

suggestion was made that the hon. Member for Baie Verte had accused the Minister of

Education of lying, and I don't have a recorded time. I wonder if -

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I consistently mark down the time when we

start Question Period. In actual fact we started at 2:25 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Very well, Oral Questions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, Oral Questions have been called again.

Would we assume, where they are being recalled now - it is 2:35 p.m - it is the

commencement of Oral Questions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions were called at 2:25 p.m. All of the proceedings came out

of the thirty minutes that would have been allocated for Oral Questions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Today I want to ask questions to the Minister of

Health and Community Services, in particular questions regarding difficulties with the

management of our health care system.

The capital cost of reorganizing the health care institutions here in

St. John's was pegged at $100 million in 1996. At the first annual general meeting of the

Health Care Corporation here in St. John's, I asked the board how they planned on paying

for the $100 million. The response to me at that meeting - and it has been public

information and in print since - has been that it would borrow $100 million and pay it off

over twenty years. It will be $200 million by the time it is paid off. A cost of $10

million a year would be saved and $10 million would go down on the debt. There will be

saving of $20 million, I say to the minister.

Since last year it has now been revised and it is not going to be $100

million any more. There is going to be $130 million for the reorganization, adding on to

the Health Sciences Centre, of which the Auditor General has noted there will be over $13

million now needed to repay the debt, and $7 million would be reinvested in the savings in

the system.

I want to ask the minister: Is this new figure now, $130 million, still

current, or is his department or the Health Care Corporation again reviewing that $130

million figure?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we mentioned here in the last sitting of the House, an extra $30

million have been allocated to the Health Care Corporation to do other capital works that

were required in the upkeep of the Grace and St. Clare's in advancing cardiac surgery and

in improving parking facilities for the new Janeway site. That totalled $130 million.

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the restructuring, way back in the

early 80s when discussions began and were finalized later in the 90s, it was made clear

that $20 million would be saved in operating. We know the full $20 million will not be

achieved, as I am sure my colleague across the House recognizes, until all of the reform

changes are put into place. So the number remains consistent with $20 million savings.

Thirteen will go into offsetting the cost of the capital that has been announced.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General has indicated that the restructuring of $130

million now does not include the cost of buying St. Clare's and the Grace Hospitals which,

with interest, will be paid back at $22 million extra - the cost of buying those two

facilities - on top off the $130 that is needed to be borrowed and the cost of repaying

that. It also does not include the cost of moving from the closed facilities to the new

one, and the cost of any new equipment in the newly constructed building, or renovations

to the current building at St. Clare's.

I ask the minister: Will she order now a review of the real costs

associated with the restructuring of health care here in St. John's so that the people can

see the real truth, that there is no saving within the reorganizing of the health care

system here under the Health Care Corporation of St. John's.

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have done an analysis on what we needed in the city. We

are providing, through the Health Care Corporation, the tertiary care centre for the

Province. We have identified the savings. The purchase of the Grace and St. Clare's was

done separate from that - it was purchased by government - and that was allocated and

identified in the Auditor General's Report.

I am not sure what connection the hon. gentleman is making other than

the fact that he might be suggesting we should not build a new Janeway. What is it you are

asking?

We have discussed this at length. It was in the Auditor General's

Report. We have an appropriate House committee that deals with each of these specific

issues with the appropriate boards. I have answered these questions previously, both in

this House and to the media. Now I am asking the gentleman: Are you suggesting that we not

build the Janeway? Is that what you are suggesting from this? Because nothing has changed

since all of this has come forward, nothing.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I did not suggest nor indicate specifically or in any way make

reference to that, Minister. That is a conclusion you are trying to divert from the real

question I asked, and you failed to give an answer.

The Janeway and the Grace Hospital were slated to close by December of

this year. Now that has been changed to December of 1999. Will the minister confirm that

the services now provided at the Grace Hospital are so significant that it is not possible

to close this facility without severely compromising the quality of health care, and it

might add a fairly enormous cost to be able to maintain delivery of those services within

the system, and that actually the Grace Hospital may have to stay open because of that?

Will the minister confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minster of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, when the appropriate professionals

made the decision to go about restructuring health care in St. John's particularly on

buildings that have been extremely well serving, I suppose, to the people of the Province

but clearly quite old, it was made in a very conscious way that if we are going to

maintain the Grace Hospital we would have to put significant monies into doing that, as we

made in the same decision with the Janeway. Some of the walls at the Janeway, Mr. Speaker,

are four feet thick, and obviously it is clear that it would take extreme measures to make

the type of renovations we would need.

We have come to the decision - the decision was made years ago - and we

can give him a full briefing and I am sure Sister Elizabeth would be happy to set him

straight on the plans that we are following in the whole restructuring because it has been

made quite clear. Obviously, if you are going to shut down a facility you do not do it

overnight, and we have not done this overnight. We have made these announcements years

ago. Obviously, they would be done in phased-in periods whereby you would do services,

transferring from one facility to another, as the facility is prepared and as the need

arises. I am not going to tell you that at midnight on December 20 that is going to happen

simultaneously, because I have confidence, Mr. Speaker, in the system, in the managers,

and in how they are going to do it.

Will we need other beds to accommodate them? We will obviously have to

prepare for an influx of patients and to meet those needs. That makes common sense, Mr.

Speaker. Surely we are preparing for it. That is why we are doing it over time. We won't

do it until we are ready to do it, Mr. Speaker. The date right now is determined, as was

indicated, in late December, 1999. Surely he wouldn't expect we do it any sooner, if we

are not ready. We are being responsible and we are doing it as we should.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the hon. Premier.

Day after day in the House, in December of 1996, when the HST was being

debated, we asked the Premier and his Finance Minister what they would do to assist

individuals and families hit hard by the application of HST to the basic necessities. I

have before me, Mr. Premier, five separate quotes that were made in just two days of

debate where government promised, and I quote: We will monitor the situation closely, and

if we find there is undue hardship on the lowest income families in the Province, we will

bring forward the proper adjustments to provide for that.

That was the promise, Mr. Premier. So I ask the Premier, or through his

Minister of Finance - and this is now exactly one year and one day since the

implementation of HST: Will the Premier, through his minister, table in the House today

the documents that the Department of Finance has prepared for him, to detail the results

of that monitoring, indicating the impact of HST on low-income individuals and families in

this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the member wants to put a

question today to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the minister can outline

in detail the range of measures contained in this most recent Budget to assist those who

have the lowest income amongst us. That is both those who are on social services and the

working poor in this Province. We have seen, in the last Budget presented by the Minister

of Finance, a series of measures targeted at individuals who are most affected, Mr.

Speaker, by the challenge of trying to put bread and butter on the table, the poorest

amongst us.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to a specific request to table today any

analysis that has been done by the Department of Finance, I don't have such an analysis

with me. I am prepared to take the member's question under advisement, to speak with the

Minister of Finance, and to assure him that any analysis that is available will be made

available to all members of the House.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier aware, or perhaps his minister, or the minister behind

him, whether that analysis and assessment has been completed in compliance with the

commitment which was given in December of 1996?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make further inquiries

as to whether or not there is a completed monitoring process. My view is that we monitor

on an ongoing basis. We don't say that for a period of time, of eight months, nine months

or a year, we will pay attention to what is happening to the working poor and the people

on social services, and then at a certain point we will stop paying attention. I think we

monitor on an ongoing basis. It is precisely for that reason that the government has

brought forward, as a result of the national child credit, a program worth some $10.15

million, whose major components are targeted at poor families with children in this

Province.

As the member knows, there are a variety of measures all the way from

increasing the amount of money that a family, for example, on social assistance can earn

without penalty; programs to provide for additional assistance for child care; programs to

provide additional benefits to people who are trying to return to the workplace; and

programs designed for early childhood care, for intervention for children at risk. All of

these measures are designed to reach out to the poor families of Newfoundland and

Labrador, to assist those who are trying to re-enter the workplace, and to provide some

incentives, Mr. Speaker, for those who are trying to move strictly off a passive

dependence on the system and to either upgrade their life skills, their education, or to

re-enter the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, this is a series of measures which have been, quite

frankly, embraced and approved by almost all of the social policy activists and advocates

within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It represents some very good work by the

Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, if there are other specific suggestions that the member

wants to bring forward, we would be glad to hear them.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Atlantic Province's Economic Council, often known as APEC, in their

anniversary report on the HST, found that for low-income consumers who spend the majority

of their income on necessities, the HST has failed to produce the same benefits that

average and above average income earners experience.

So my question again is to the Premier, similar to the last one. In

view of the fact that we are now just one day past the first anniversary, is there a

commitment, rather than generalities, Mr. Premier, that there will be a firm analysis and

assessment completed with respect to the success or failure, or somewhere in between, of

HST as it relates to low-income families in our Province? Will there be an assessment, and

in due course will that assessment be tabled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the information that the member has

just imparted to the House, and through the House to the people of the Province, that

middle-income families and higher-income families get a better break from the

harmonization of the tax system than the lower-income families cannot come as any surprise

to anybody. Under any sales tax regime, the more you consume, the more you spend, the more

you consequently save as a result of lowering the retail tax burden.

So it is impossible, quite frankly, that it could be otherwise, other

than a greater savings for those of higher incomes. What is important in what the member

has said is a recognition, Mr. Speaker, that indeed the harmonized sales tax in this

Province has given a real break to consumers generally, albeit a larger break to those who

spend more.

Let us recognize - and I know the member recognizes - that we have gone

from nearly a 20 per cent sales tax burden in this Province to a 15 per cent sales tax

burden. That is a one-quarter decline in one fell swoop.

Mr. Speaker, last year, even though the GDP of Newfoundland and

Labrador declined, and even though we had out-migration in the Province, it is interesting

to note that retail sales in this Province actually went up for the first time in many

years.

So, Mr. Speaker, for society as a whole, for the economy as a whole,

this policy has worked well. But it is true, and I agree with the member and his

representation, we need to pay - all of us - particular attention to poorer families, to

monitor their circumstance and to be ready to take additional measures, as we can afford

to, to assist them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

Nine days after the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

announced that Burry's Marine Division Limited had won the contract to operate the

Labrador coastal ferry service, we learned that Burry's has backed out of the deal. Can

the minister tell us today why the deal is off, under what arrangements the withdrawal

occurred, and what happens now?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Burry's Marine Division Limited were, in fact, awarded the Labrador

coastal service piece of business last week, as I announced in the House. Subsequent to

that - I believe it was fairly early on Monday morning - I had a call and a subsequent fax

letter from the organization simply declining, in a four-line letter to me, to accept the

contract that we had awarded to them. They did not give me any specific reason. You would

have to put that question, of course, to that corporation, to that company, as to why they

chose not to accept the award that we put to them.

The requirement under The Public Tender Act is that we move to look at

other proponents that had put in bids on the service. There were two other proponents who

bid on the service. Both had sound business plans, and we have done an evaluation of the

two proponents that remain. The second-lowest bidder was the next logical choice in

accordance with the legislation and we have awarded the tender to that group, as I

announced today in a press release just an hour or two ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, prior to the time you made your statement in the House on

March 24, or in the days since, did Burry's and the Province sign a legal contract on the

delivery of this service? And did the Province accept a bid bond? Normally with the bids

or tenders you get bid bonds. Did you accept a bid bond of $50,000, and a $2 million

performance bond when the tender was submitted? What happens to the contract and the bid

bond? What is going to happen there?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The process is pretty straightforward, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to the legislation, there was a bid bond, there was a performance bond provided

by the Burry group. The bid bond was for $50,000. Under the Act, that $50,000 is now

forfeited to the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am glad to hear it. I am glad they are following

the Public Tender Act for a change. The minister said on March 24 that Burry's had the

lowest bid. What were the amounts put forward by the other bidders, in particular the next

lowest bidder, whom you awarded the contract to? What is the amount (inaudible)?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the bid price was a net

figure, and the net figure after collection of revenues as a result of running the service

by Burry's was $3.2 million. The next lowest net bid was the second proponent, obviously,

$4.17 million, and we have moved to that proponent to make the offer of a contract award,

and I understand they are prepared to accept it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that the

start-up date was for June 9, and that that date will not be affected? In your statement

you announced that there will be no rate increases for the people living on the Coast of

Labrador with the new contract. Will that stay in place?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the hon. member is correct on both accounts. We announced a

tentative start date of June 9, subject to weather conditions, always, of course, or ice

conditions on the Coast. In terms of a delaying in that schedule, absolutely no, there

will be no delay in the start-up date.

In terms of the adjustments to the rates, the tariffs, and the

schedule

I announced a week ago, also there will be absolutely no change in any of those reductions

in rates and improvements in services that we announced.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we had only twenty minutes for Question

Period today because of the manipulation by the Premier.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of

order.

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman, we realize that through

that stuff that went on just now, that mess they tried to create over there, they lost ten

minutes of Question Period. In view of the line of questioning he is putting to the hon.

gentleman, if he wants to continue on ferries, by leave, yes, take the next ten minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Before recognizing the hon. member, the Chair would seek direction. Is

it the understanding of the Chair that leave is given to extend Question Period to five

minutes beyond the hour of 3:00 p.m.?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, yes, we give them leave to use their full

thirty minutes. We understand they have some very pressing questions they want to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: My question is for the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation. The Auditor General's Report reviewed the vehicle fleet management

function of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. The review uncovered

many weaknesses with respect to the management system itself, most of which the department

agreed with. The cost is not insignificant: for 869 vehicles, $15 million to buy the

vehicles and $15 million per year to operate. What concrete plans does the department have

to correct the deficiencies brought up by the Auditor General?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There were a couple of points raised in the Auditor General's Report

with respect to the management of the light vehicle fleet of the government by our

department. We manage vehicles on behalf of all departments to some extent. In our

response we said to the minister that we were having some difficulties in tracing and

controlling the numbers and the information that we needed. The primary difficulties we

were having were as a result of the twenty-year-old computer system that was in place to

handle the input that we were getting. It is acknowledged, all 'round, that that was

causing us some deficiencies in terms of the accumulation of information. The questions,

points raised, were addressed by me, back to the Auditor General and as I understand it,

they were quite acceptable and obviously that is where the matter is now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said that the points were addressed. They may have been

answered or addressed but they were not resolved, I can tell you that, I say to the

minister.

During 1996-1997, 116 light vehicles were purchased. The Auditor

General found justification procedures to purchase -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want the minister to hear the question or not?

Go back to sleep.

The Auditor General found the justification procedures to purchase to

be ineffective. She noted that 412 vehicles were six years or older. What steps are taken

by the minister and by his department to meet the true needs and the safety concerns? We

have heard stories about the old vehicles - the RNC are driving vehicles that have holes

in the floors, motors being moved around and changed around, transmissions gone. Can the

minister tell us what the department is doing to meet the true needs of the vehicle

requirements?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again is factually

correct to the extent that he recognizes, in his question, that we have been decreasing

the number of vehicles that we have been buying as government. We have been, over the last

five or six years, not buying as many vehicles and using the current vehicles that we have

in the fleet to the maximum extent possible before we bought more vehicles.

As to what measures, Mr. Speaker, we are taking to control the costs of

the fleet that we buy and control the costs of the operation of these fleets, I would

simply say to him that we are taking all appropriate measures that will ensure that not

only is there full accountability but beyond that, and equally as important as that, that

there is full value for dollars we are spending on behalf of the taxpayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, the Auditor General's theme in this area is the absence

of data upon which to manage. For example, the problems with respect to the 869 vehicles

versus the 1,448 keys which are encoded to have access to the gas pumps; the number of

credit card usages and control of the credit cards; the purchases versus the rentals and

the maintenance costs of other vehicles, has this year's Budget included anything to

improve the fleet management system, and if so, how much?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are measures being taken.

There is a provision in my department's budget this year under the heading of IT to

improve our computer systems and that sort of thing and I believe that figure is $400,000.

I can confirm that but as I recall reviewing the Budget, I think $400,000 is the figure we

have.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Environment and Labour

about the Trash-to-Cash program and he promised to have answers the following day. So I

presume that he has had ample time to prepare his answers. I ask the minister if he could

tell us how many containers were deposits collected on and how much revenue was collected

as a result of that program? Furthermore, how much money was returned to the public as a

result of returning for recycling those containers?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We collected 85 million cans, $11 million has been collected, there is

$2.5 million in profit, $2.5 million given back to the consumer. There have been

thirty-seven depots in operation, and over 100 people have been employed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the information I gave the minister a week ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: He did a good job of repeating my answers. I

suggested to the minister last week as well, that he should look at reinvesting some of

the excess revenue that he just told us about from this program, back into recycling

depots in the more remote areas of the Province, so that people living in those areas will

also have the opportunity to recycle because of the fact that they are also paying

deposits.

Will the minister tell us what plans he has to increase recycling of

containers under this program and also, what plans he has to increase recycling in

general?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have worked with people in remote parts of the Province especially

on the Coast of Labrador. What we have done is, we have collected in the schools and we

have advanced cash from the board back to the schools so that they can take advantage of

the cash to them, and we will continue to do that.

As to what we are doing, we have met with the two paper companies,

Kruger and Abitibi Consolidated, we have met with Robinson-Blackmore papers and we have

told them within the next week or so, we want them to present to us a plan and if they do

not do that, then we will impose one on them. Also, we are very close to having a

waste-all management between parties, Waste Management in Pasadena and Crosbie's here in

St. John's, and are very close to having a proposal on recycled tires plus, we also have

proposals from people to recycle glass. So there is much being done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He does an outstanding job of presenting answers when he has a week of

notice on the questions.

Will the minister confirm that as a result of the Trash-to-Cash

program, it is now less profitable to recycle regular food containers, such as food tins

and butter containers, therefore, recycling depots are reluctant to accept those other

products? While we are recycling more beverage containers, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we

are recycling less of those other products, therefore, people are sending those products

to landfill sites.

I ask the minister: What is he going to do to curb this problem? Is our

environment better off now by sending other containers to land fills where previously the

recycling depots used to recycle those items as well?

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

MR LANGDON: First of all, I would like to say to the hon. member

that recycling is certainly catching on, and we recycle questions and so on.

No, Mr. Speaker, our landfill sites are not being filled up with extra

debris as he suggested. There are some problems, in a sense, I guess, with not being able

to recycle all the materials but we are working with the Multi-Stewardship Board and with

New Bri. Therefore, I believe that at the end of the day, we are doing a much better job

as a result of the legislation by my predecessor, the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods.

MR. SPEAKER: The regular time for Question Period plus the extended

time that was granted by leave, has elapsed.

MR. TULK: By leave. If there are any more of those questions,

either on recycling or otherwise, we can give leave to the Opposition to ask.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West, by leave.

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions are for the Minister of Justice, and

they regard the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Facility for Women at Clarenville.

As the minister knows, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of

Women and the Elizabeth Fry Society released a report yesterday saying that this facility,

to which these women were moved some two years ago, is sorely inadequate and is not

meeting their needs. Now I am going to ask the minister: When will the minister address

one of the key problems identified in the report?

I know that the minister said outside this House yesterday that the

department is evaluating the report and has already looked at options. Those replies sound

terribly familiar and repetitive of the answers that he gave regarding the famous dusty

Inkpen Report. When will the minister address one of the key problems identified, and that

is the shocking lack of space, that is having a negative impact on remediation at the

facility?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice contracted to

have that report done. We requested the report, paid for having it, and even as we speak

we are making plans to address the issue to which she referred.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Once again I say that sounds strikingly familiar to

that other report where we are making plans, evaluating, looking at options.

Recommendation No. 2 asks that the department support the development

of an organization whose sole mandate is to work and advocate for, and on behalf of,

female prisoners, women at risk of being in conflict with the law, and women who were in

conflict with the law in the past. When will the minister say yes to this recommendation

and provide recognition, funding and other support to the Elizabeth Fry Society?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Elizabeth Fry Society, which did the

report, which went out and attempted to address some of the issues, suggested that we

should have a group who would carry on and receive funding from government. They even

suggested that the Elizabeth Fry Society would be an appropriate group to do that. We are

looking at that and maybe, indeed, they might be the group the do to, but if they are not,

then some other group will. The John Howard Society does provide excellent service to the

male prisoners. We recognize that there is need and we are addressing that as well.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: We are looking at options, evaluating, we continue

to do that on these reports, while people are in need. Some day, as a society, we will

have to engage one another in a meaningful discussion about the various kinds of crime,

the fundamental reasons for criminal activity, the purpose of incarceration, and what we

expect the system to do for prisoners before they are released.

In the meantime, what will the minister do to respond to the report's

conclusions that women feel isolated from the communities into which they will one day be

released; that they feel isolated from the Clarenville community as well; and that they

don't receive adequate or appropriate counselling to identify and respond to the various

individual needs that may have gotten them into trouble with the law in the first place?

When and how do you plan to address these concerns?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the whole point of having that report done

was, we were asking the Status of Women Council, who had the contract and they sublet it

to the Elizabeth Fry Society - we asked to have these issues addressed. So, I am hoping

that the report which was made by the Elizabeth Fry Society will indeed assist us in

addressing the issues which the hon. member raised.

That is the whole reason that government took the initiative to have

this report done, Mr. Speaker. It was not something that the Elizabeth Fry Society took

under their own initiative and went out and did. It was paid for by government because

some concerns were raised, about this time last year actually, in the House of Assembly.

We took them very seriously, and we attempted to address them. We contracted with the

Status of Women to make some suggestions and recommendations. I am certainly hoping that

this report will indeed put forward some ways that we can address these very serious

issues that government need address.

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

MR. TULK: If there is anybody else who wants to ask a question,

they should feel free.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees?

Notices of Motion?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I guess, in the verbiage

going back and forth, I didn't hear you call Presenting Reports. With your permission, or

the permission of the House, I would like to so do.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have leave to revert to Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees?

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to the statutory requirement, I am pleased to present the

report on the Public Tender Act exemptions for the month of February, in the interest of

keeping the Opposition as up to date as we can, and providing them with (inaudible),

whatever information and ammunition we can give them. February exemptions being tabled,

Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I present a petition on behalf of residents in my district in

Trepassey. This pertains to the Goulds bypass road. I will read part of the prayer of the

petition that gives an insight into what the petition is all about, and some of the

reasoning why they would want this project to be completed.

WHEREAS the construction of a Goulds bypass road has been identified as

a priority for development under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative; and

WHEREAS the construction of a Goulds bypass road has not begun despite

repeated promises from government; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has indicated that

construction of the Goulds bypass road will not begin this year; and

WHEREAS significant opportunities for development in the region are

contingent on the completion of the Goulds bypass road; and

WHEREAS the viability of our communities and businesses is dependent

upon an adequate transportation infrastructure that allows our region access to the

opportunities and markets of the capital region; and

WHEREAS the growth of our communities is closely related to the ability

of our citizens to commute to work within a reasonable time each day over highways that

are in good condition; and

WHEREAS the financial resources to begin the Goulds bypass road have

been identified under the Canada-Newfoundland Transportation Initiative;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to begin construction of the Goulds bypass road this coming year.

This, I might say to the Government House Leader and the Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal, came through the efforts of a meeting that was held with

all municipalities and with Zone 20, the Irish Loop Regional Economic Development Board.

They feel it is very important for economic development in our area that there be a

reasonable access to our area in that particular area, especially driving through the

entire community of the Goulds during traffic hours. It is a deterrent to tourism. It

makes it difficult for people to maintain residence in rural Newfoundland and commute to

work. It is very important that work begin on this as expeditiously as possible.

Many people are having to leave rural communities because the distance

to commute from parts of the district into St. John's takes forty-five minutes from Big

Pond in the morning in traffic hours during the busy time of the day. I drive it on a

fairly regular basis. You can drive then another forty-five minutes, and it can put you

five times the difference as the first forty-five minutes. In other words, you drive from

my residence in Fermeuse into this building in an hour and a half or more in traffic, and

over half the time to get through the City of St. John's. From the time you hit the City

boundary it takes more than half the time to come from Fermeuse and Renews and those areas

up on the southern part of the Avalon Peninsula in the District of Ferryland.

It is not acceptable. I know the Government House Leader has voiced a

concern. I heard him on the radio one morning saying, as I was driving through that

traffic in the Goulds: Why don't they leave at 6:45 in the morning before traffic? Why do

they need it? That is the minister, the Government House Leader, who stated that. My

comments were: You tell that to a mother who has to leave home in the morning at 6:45,

doesn't get back in the night until 7:00, with kids in school, and her husband probably

working, probably out of the Province looking for a job as a result of a downturn in the

fishery, and having to drive and spend three hours commuting every single day.

It is not acceptable. We should be able to provide an infrastructure

not only to be able to accommodate people going to work, but an infrastructure to

accommodate business activity. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars being invested

in Bay Bulls, in the port there, that would be enticing to offshore development. We hope

the economy will expand. We have an internationally renowned company in Bay Bulls, C &

W Welding, providing boats, building boats for down in South America for policing. They

are world-renowned and producing a top quality product. They need a transportation system

for the delivery of their product, and they need opportunities and appropriate

infrastructure here in order to be able to expand our ever-growing tourism in the area.

Many times I hear from tourists: We can't, the road is so congested.

I might remind the minister again, while I am on my feet, that they

say: In fog, it is on the coast and it is very foggy, we can't see. There is no centre

line on the road. Do you know when the centre line gets put on the highway? In August, Mr.

Speaker, when most tourists have gone through. Elderly people trying to commute...

I am sure the minister will fulfil that commitment, that they will

start it this year, very early in the year, as opposed to leaving it for the last one to

be done, on a regular basis.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) lines on the road (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We don't need lines. You have a minister who used to

have a grader leave before him in the morning and escort him into St. John's. They only

ploughed and sanded the road when he was minister. Now that the current minister

represents the City of St. John's, the City of St. John's does his snowploughing on the

streets to get him to work in the morning. Hopefully he will be able to divert some

resources into dealing with a very important problem.

I am very serious, I say to the minister, and the minister is well

aware that representation has been made by all of the municipalities, by the Regional

Economic Development Board that is going to hopefully play a very vital role in rural

Newfoundland in the future, to be able to put in an infrastructure.

One of the biggest aspects of enticing business - and I supported the

Outer Ring Road, I said, because it is important too because we cannot bottleneck an area

of the city. You cannot have businesses spending forty minutes driving from one part of a

city to another. That is lost productivity. You have to pay workers and employees and so

on. We have to have a better system. We want to see a start. We want to see some activity.

We want to see some hope and some promise, and a shot in the arm for the business

community who want to invest their dollars in the area here, and it really does.

When you look at someone in business wanting to expand a business, to

invest dollars, they want to see that government is willing to come at least halfway and

play a part, and enable them to have a proper avenue to be able to operate their business,

and a proper road network that is going to be at least enticing to people.

The Goulds bypass road to Bay Bulls Big Pond is not the only answer, I

say to the minister, too, but it is a good start. That is a help. At least that gets you

through the majority of the City of St. John's. You can imagine now being told you have to

leave downtown St. John's and drive Water Street in all the traffic, go in Waterford

Bridge Road or up Topsail Road; the traffic congestion would be a complete nightmare. You

would not be able to commute.

What we have going through the Goulds area, there are times when you

are trying to enter the highway in the Goulds, to make a left turn, I often waited seven

to eight minutes trying to get off a parking lot onto a highway. That is a long wait. The

next time you are in your car, sit down for seven or eight minutes and stop and time it,

and you will see how long that is. In fact, people get so frustrated that they make a

right turn, go out and spin around, and come back again, and there are cars still lining

up to get onto the highway. It is a nightmare, and people who live in the area support it,

I might add. People who live in the area support it because it will take traffic off the

Goulds highway. It will make it a little more closer knit community. At least you can get

in your car - it is safer walking along the highway when we cut down on the traffic

congestion that is there.

It is positive from the point of view of the Goulds itself; it is

positive for every single person living south of the Goulds area, right to Trepassey and

St. Shotts, in those areas that use that highway frequently to get into work and to move

goods and services along that highway.

I hope the minister, in his pot of money now, when the tenders come in

this year - the tenders, I am hearing, are lower and very competitive this year, I say to

the minister; he is going to have extra money in his pot of money - hopefully he will find

at least $1 million or $2 million out of the $10 million that is needed to get a start

this year, and hopefully over the next two years we will see a completion of this very

worthwhile project.

I say to the minister, last year I think the tenders came in at

probably $6 million higher than you anticipated overall on your total budget. Overall bids

this year, I hear, are very competitive. The minister may find a few extra dollars there

to be able to do some work in the area here.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very urgent matter for people in the area.

It has been their number one priority for a number of years. Commitments were made back in

the late 1980s. In 1992, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation,

representatives from the Department of Environment, the deputy ministers from both

departments, attended a public meeting in my district.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish up, Mr. Speaker. It will only take

thirty seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: A commitment was given. I know the Minister had a

statement in writing. So, all we want to see is to expedite the process here and this

unused money in your tenders, that is going to come in under Budget this year, direct $1

million or $2 million of that, and get a start here, get things under way. At least, by

the turn of the century we will be able to drive on a highway and be able to get from here

to the other end of the city of St. John's, at least, in a reasonable period of time.

Right now, to drive through the city of St. John's, from one end to the

other, would take about an hour; almost an hour to drive through the city of St. John's in

to the Goulds area, to the outer limits of the city. That is unacceptable. I can drive to

almost the Southern end of my district from that area in that time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today, once again, to rise in my place and support the

petition presented by the Member from Ferryland, to represent the constituents of his

district in trying to get the Goulds bypass road started this year.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the Goulds bypass road is an extension

of the Southern Shore Highway around the Goulds, outside the Goulds and Kilbride. It has

been promised by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for a number of years

now. We know that the municipalities on the Southern Shore support it. We know that the

people of the Southern Shore support it. It think it was promised to be started this year.

It is only recently, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

put out a statement saying that the Goulds bypass would not be started this year.

The Member for Ferryland presented that petition in this House the

other day from a group of people in St. Shotts. Those people are not even in the member's

district. They are in the district of Placentia & St. Mary's, represented by a member

sitting here in the House of Assembly. Yet we have a member from the District of Ferryland

presenting a petition on behalf of the people of St. Shotts in this House of Assembly,

trying to get the Southern Shore highway done. The people out in that area come down

through the Southern Shore highway to St. John's. Today he is presenting a petition here

representing people in Trepassey. So, they are coming further north, Mr. Speaker.

There are legitimate reasons why this road needs to be started this

year. The traffic on the Southern Shore highway is horrendous, Mr. Speaker, early in the

morning when people are trying to get to work, and in the evenings when people are leaving

to go back home, up the Southern Shore or down the Southern Shore, depending on how you

look at it, Mr. Speaker. The lines of traffic are extensive on the Southern Shore highway.

One of the things that is adding to the problem of people taking so

long to come in through the Goulds and through Kilbride, and what have you, into St.

John's, Mr. Speaker, is the condition of the highway itself. The condition of the highway

is pathetic. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should have put money into

this Southern Shore highway or the Goulds bypass road long before this.

In the summertime, again I could compare the Southern Shore highway to

the Marine Drive in my district. The Marine Drive in my district is in pathetic condition.

We have hundreds and thousands of tourists coming to St. John's, Mr. Speaker, driving down

to Marine Drive, Logy Bay, Middle Cove, Outer Cove, Torbay, Flatrock, Pouch Cove and

Bauline, and that road is in pathetic shape also, just as the Southern Shore highway is.

We expect people to come to St. John's, go out on these scenic routes,

down through the Southern Shore, down through Bay Bulls, Witless Bay, Tors Cove, Mobile,

and what have you, the whole Southern Shore, Mr. Speaker. We encourage tourist to go there

and the roads are not fit to drive over.

As I said earlier, we had the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation promise that that road would be done, we would be starting the Goulds

by-pass, and it has not started to date. It should be started this year. There should be

funding in the Budget this year for the Goulds bypass.

The minister talks, in the Budget, about how much money is been spent.

I think it is the most in recent years. There is more money this year in the Budget for

the highways and roads in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the Goulds bypass

cannot be started this year. Why, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, why can't they be started this year?

The road itself, the Goulds bypass, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker,

would be a part of the network that is been planned by the Department of Works, Service

and Transportation, to be connected to, I would assume, the Outer Ring Road and to be a

part of the whole network circumventing the city of St. John's.

The Outer Ring Road, Mr. Speaker, is a very important part of the

overall transportation movement, or the traffic flow in and around St. John's. If the

Southern Shore highway or the Goulds bypass could be connected into that, loop around the

Goulds and Kilbride, it would make the travel time and even the amount of - if you want to

talk about the environment, we will talk about the environment, Mr. Speaker, we will talk

about the pollution of all these cars on the Southern Shore highway, and going through

Kilbride and the Goulds in the morning, spending all this extra time on the highway when

there is no need for it. It could actually help clear up the environment. Mr. Speaker,

that is a point that has not been touched on in this House of Assembly when people have

been up presenting petitions and responding to petitions with respect to the Goulds

Bypass.

There is another bypass that should addressed here while I am on my

feet, Mr. Speaker, and that is in my district. There were talks a few years ago of the

Torbay bypass, but the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the present

Minister of Fisheries, put the kibosh on that. He put that on the back burner. The traffic

on the Torbay highway now is horrendous. It is as bad as the traffic on the Goulds highway

and the Southern Shore highway. Early in the mornings, if you try to access Torbay road,

say from Quigley's Lane in Torbay or the Pine Line off Torbay road, and get into the

traffic on Torbay road, it is again, the same word, horrendous.

I have some discussions with the people in Torbay, the municipal

council in Torbay, with respect to Torbay Road. There is a four lane highway there now-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose I have an obligation to respond to the petition presented by

the hon. the Member for Ferryland and also supported by my good friend, my colleague from

AN HON. MEMBER: Your good friend! You have a Tory friend?

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely. From Cape St. Francis.

The issue of the Goulds bypass road is not a new issue. It is a project

that I have indicated outside of the House, to the towns, the mayors and the general

public in the area who have come forward and asked about it, we are committed to doing. We

will move to get the Goulds bypass road physically started, as quickly as we can.

Having said that, I should point out, as the hon. members know I

believe, that there is some work already done in that direction. Some engineering work has

been done, some land procurement has taken place and we are in negotiations, of course, to

acquire other pieces of property and land that we need to do that road.

I appreciate the hon. Member for Ferryland's comment about the

importance of doing the Outer Ring road and getting that completed.

It was just this morning that I spent the full first half of the day in

a rural district in the Province, in the Placentia - St. Mary's area. I noticed, as I came

over the Trans Canada, that it took me twenty minutes to get from where the Outer Ring

road would normally start, it took me about twenty minutes to get from, essentially,

Donovan's Park to Confederation Building. It took me less than forty minutes to get from

Whitbourne to Donovan's Industrial Park. So his comments, while appreciated, are also

factual, in that the completion of the Outer Ring road will improve transportation links

around the Province immensely for everybody, including people who are coming off the

Southern Shore.

Just to reiterate again, Mr. Speaker, for the record: While physical

construction has not started this year, preliminary work is ongoing, engineering work is

in hand and the Goulds bypass road will be started at the earliest possible opportunity.

If, by some chance - I don't envisage it, I don't foresee it, I do not

think it will happen - but, if by some chance, there is a degree of latitude available in

my Roads for Rail budget this year, then I would obviously be prepared to give some

consideration to that project, to some extent, this year. But the realistic expectation is

that that project will be started next year or some time thereafter, and I would say in

the House and for the record as I have said privately to the hon. member and to his

constituents, that the piece of road, the Goulds by-pass, will be started sooner rather

than later.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present to the hon. House of Assembly. The prayer

of the petition reads:

We, the residents of St. John's, wish to petition the hon. House of

Assembly giving particular attention to the Department of Health and Community Services

and the Department of Environment, regarding emissions from the Grace Hospital stack.

We request that the House of Assembly look into burning cleaner fuel or

upgrading emission standards at the stack. There is considerable damage being done to

cars, personal property, clothes on clothes-lines, as well as possible health risks due to

emissions from this stack.

Mr. Speaker, we had asked of the Environment Minister yesterday in the

House of Assembly, questions regarding this stack, and as per the normal with the Minister

of Environment and Labour, Mr. Speaker, he was unable to answer those questions. He would

take them on advisement and get back to us with an answer. I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, one

of these days, we are not going to be able to see the Minister of Environment and Labour

because he would be buried behind the stack of answers to all of the questions that he has

not yet answered.

This particular issue is a very important issue, a very serious issue.

The people who are living in the area are concerned about their health, their children's,

their families' health. There is considerable damage being done to their properties, their

automobiles, clothes on their clothes-lines and so on. I do not have to elaborate, Mr.

Speaker, on how serious this issue is, but what I would like to have elaborated on is some

answers to this issue. I would like to have elaborated on some action taken to this issue.

I was told by the Minister of Environment and Labour that the Grace

Hospital is going to close soon anyway, so what is the difference? The difference is, that

even if it is only open for another couple of years, Mr. Speaker, those are a couple of

years that those people have to put up with emissions. It is the same as forcing somebody

to smoke for two years when they do not want to, it is the same thing. So, Mr. Speaker, I

hope that the Minister of Environment and Labour is listening somewhere and will give

consideration to this petition. I hope that the government will give consideration to this

petition and I hope that the government will do something to alleviate the concerns, to

correct the problem so that the residents of the area do not have to worry about health

risks; they do not have to go out in the mornings and clean their windshields of soot,

that they will not have to take clothes in off the clothes-line and rewash it; that they

will not have to continuously scrub the windows on their homes because they are unable to

see through the soot.

It might be a matter that is not considered serious by some members of

the House but, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that those members would not want to be

living in those conditions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I would like to rise in support of this petition

against the burning of Bunker C at the Grace Hospital. I attended a meeting the other

night where there were quite a few residents who live in the area and the stories that

they told were absolutely horrible.

If you can picture getting up every morning, going out and having large

flakes of soot embedded into your automobile or going out at any time on your deck and

finding large flakes of soot embedded into the paint on your deck, on the clothes on your

line, just picture what you are breathing. There was a woman there who is the mother of

two small children and she said every morning when she goes out, she turns on her car and

as the fan comes on, the black soot comes out from the vents in her car. When her children

come in from playing there is soot all over their eyes, their faces, in their ears,

everywhere, so picture what could be in the lungs of the people who are living in that

area, an area where they spend all their time.

The other day, the Minister of Environment and Labour said in this

House that government would not accept responsibility for any health problems that would

arise as the result of the soot emissions from the Grace Hospital. That was the only

question he answered, he did not know the other answers, he said.

In reference to that answer, saying the government would not be

responsible, I would suggest the minister have another look at his response. Because if

what I heard and saw the other night, the tales of the soot, if the people are breathing

that in, imminent health problems will occur, and some day, in the not-too-distant future,

the Minister of Environment and Lands may have no other choice but to accept

responsibility for the health problems that will arise as a result of these soot

emissions.

Now, it is a known fact that Bunker C is the dirtiest oil that can be

burned. The cheapest oil, fine, I can accept that, and I can accept saying we have to be

fiscally responsible, and therefore, we have to burn the cheapest oil. But at what cost?

At the other end of it, when the health of the people in the area is at stake, what is the

price of saving a few dollars when you have children out playing in their yard and when

they come in they are totally full of soot? What have they breathed in? This is not

something that should be taken lightly.

When my colleague, the Member for St. John's South got up the other day

to ask one of the questions, he said that when the child blew his or her nose that it was

full of black. That sounds pretty graphic and it sounds like you are being pretty

descriptive, but sometimes we have to be pretty descriptive to bring things to light, so

that people can understand exactly what is going on.

I would suggest the Minister of Environment and Lands have a look at

what is happening, re-evaluate, reassess the decision to burn the cheap Bunker C right in

the middle of a densely populated neighbourhood in the downtown part of St. John's, where

the cheapest of oil is being burned, where the soot emissions - they pump that stack in

the night, and large flakes of soot come out and land all over the people's property,

embedded in the paint on their deck, embedded into the enamel on their cars, that even

when they go through the car wash, they tell me, these big flakes do not come out.

Where the government might be responsible for the damage to the

property, for the damage to the cars, damage to the clothes that are put out on the

clothesline, all of that can be repaired. You can re-paint the car, you can re-paint your

deck, you can scrub down your deck chairs, but you tell me how you can get at your lungs.

If the people in that area develop lung problems, this government has been put on notice.

In spite of the fact that the minister gets up and says this government will not accept

responsibility, I would like to suggest that maybe there will be no other choice when the

people in the area who have given notice to the government turn up with serious health

problems and lung conditions as a result of the smoke emissions from the Grace Hospital.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 1.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and participate in the great Budget Debate. We all were

here last Thursday when the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board stood in his place and

rendered to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador his comments called the Budget for

next year.

At the time, I thought that the only thing it lacked was the Hallelujah

Chorus and perhaps being accompanied by a pipe band. Because it had all of the right

words and, of course, we have been anxious ever since to see if we can find where all the

substance is. In fact, the media have kind of labelled the Budget as being very high on

generalities and not very high on substance.

One of the things I noted in the Budget was the fact that the minister

made no note of the cuts that were announced last year. For the benefit of all of us, we

should note that the government has a strategy, which is part of the Chrtien Government

strategy borrowed from Ottawa, in which they will announce all of the bad things several

years in advance and then, of course, as they lead up towards the election, they can then

say: Look, you know, we have all good news.

We know that the lay-offs that were announced last year are now taking

effect this year. Mr. Speaker, it does not matter too much to the person who is being laid

off in the civil service if they were told they were going to be laid off a year ago and

it is being effective now or whether they were told this year that they were going to be

laid off.

The truth is that the Budget makes statements to the effect that there

will be no further lay-offs in the civil service. The reality is that they were announced

as part of the three-year Budget plan. Mr. Speaker, while there is nothing wrong with

that, in the sense of the financial program put forward by the government, and while there

is nothing wrong with it in the technical sense, it does certainly give an inappropriate

interpretation of the Budget document.

Mr. Speaker, the very same thing goes for an example brought to my

attention just this morning by a senior in my community. The senior, who happened to have

gone to get their vehicle licensed, said: I thought there were no increases in this year's

Budget. Well, last year when I got my car licensed, I paid $120. This year I have been

asked to pay $140. Mr. Speaker, then I said to the senior: Well, that is the way the

government has done it. They announce their increases in all of the fees and all of the

lay-offs, announced them a year ago, and then they turn around this year and say: We do

not have any increases in fees, do not have any increases in lay-offs in the civil service

and everything is hunky-dory, everything is `march forward' and everything is pleasant.

Yet, for these people who are finding that the increases announced last year are just now

effective this year, they are facing the reality of the Budget process.

Mr. Speaker, the very same thing applies to many of the other things

that the minister announced. However, when it comes to announcing government expenditures

like, for example, building schools and doing all these projects, we generally find that

they get announced five, six and seven times. So there is an inconsistency in the way that

government handles its communications with the public. On the one hand, if there is

something that the government thinks is positive for them, they will announce it three and

four times and you will have the federal minister announce it as well three or four times

if there is any federal funding involved whatsoever, and that is the way it is.

For example, the Premier has announced the $100 million of federal

money in bits and pieces, in total amounts and all kinds of combinations and done it many,

many times over. However, when it comes to announcing the negative things, it is done very

quietly and only ever done once and hopefully, as far as the government would be

concerned, done two or three years in advance. It is not a strategy that is unbeknownst to

governments and bureaucrats and these types but we have to remind the public that the

reality is a little different from what the Premier and his government, the Minister of

Finance, had announced last Thursday in the Budget Speech.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment on a couple of things. We

were surprised that there were no direct strategies announced to combat the out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I live in an urban part of the Province and have lived here for

a great number of years; however, I do spend a fair bit of time in rural Newfoundland. My

family roots are there and I can tell you, if you go around this Province, it is very,

very discouraging.

I listened to CBC this morning and they were talking to Mayor Dan

Coombs from Trepassey. Mayor Dan Coombs is a gentleman whom I have known for many, many

years, lived in Mount Pearl for a fair number of years and was very much involved in the

community before he moved to Trepassey and is now the mayor there. Mr. Speaker, we have

heard the plight of the people of Trepassey, how they had a population of 1,500 or so and

now they are down to, officially it says, 900; but in reality it is more like 650 or 700.

We know what happens to real estate values in communities like

Trepassey. In fact there was an

article on I think it was CBC a few days ago talking about

the value of property, and how if you happen to have a home for sale then there has to be,

of course, a willing buyer and a willing seller. In this particular case there are willing

sellers but there are no willing buyers for the price for which people can afford to sell

their homes, because there is no demand for new homes in communities like Trepassey.

Neither is there any demand in most of the communities.

I listened the other day to a report of a real estate agent in Gander

talking about what is happening down in Gander Bay area, and the fact that the agent was

saying that you can find some homes that would have been build for $50,000 or $60,000 or

$70,000 in some of the smaller communities, and today when they are trying to sell them

they cannot get half of that price. It sometimes happens, however, that someone will come

along - it might be a teacher, it might be a clergyman, it might be some other official,

or maybe someone retiring - who wishes to move to that community, and you will find a

buyer and the price may be somewhat more acceptable to the seller.

However, the difficulty we have is with out-migration, with rural

Newfoundland and what is happening there. We want to say to the government that when they

announced last year they were going to take some bold and aggressive measures to address

the issues of rural Newfoundland, we have not seen those kinds of measures. We have not

heard the government say: Here is what we are going to try to do to combat the

difficulties that are being encountered by ordinary people in ordinary communities, from

ordinary families in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Member for Torngat Mountains speak so

eloquently here yesterday about the difficulties in his district. He said that some

communities have up to 88 per cent unemployment, and we have heard him say that before. We

had some other members on the government side talk about the high rate of unemployment in

their communities. And, of course, we have to recognize that people are poor, and they are

poor because they do not have jobs. It is not because they are not willing to go to work.

It is not because they do not have a work ethic. In fact, I happen to believe that the

work ethic in Newfoundland and Labrador is very fine, thank you, but we must have a job

for people to go to.

If you go around this Province in the way that I have journeyed around

the Province in the last number of years, you have to see the real faces, the real pain,

the real struggle of families as they try to put food on the table and try to make sure -

in some cases, families are caught between having to look after their own children and

make sure that they are adequately cared for. Then, they have their mother and father who

have nowhere to go other than stay in that community.

I remember going into a community on the Great Northern Peninsula about

a year and a half ago and talking to the school principal in a meeting there, and talking

to the social workers. They were telling me how so many of their schoolchildren, the

smartest and the brightest children, from families that wanted to have a better

opportunity for their children, these families were just moving up. We have seen the

television programs and seen what happens with people saying goodbye at Port aux Basques.

We know these people are not coming back.

I just say to you that in my family I have fourteen nieces and nephews,

and it is very sad when I say that only two members of my family, my nieces and nephews,

have employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. My family today is scattered from British

Columbia to almost every province, and then internationally. Some of them are working in

southeast Asia.

I say to you that what is happening to our families in Newfoundland and

Labrador should be of great concern to this government. In this Budget we do not see the

measures taken to try to address those real concerns of ordinary people.

We cannot continue to see 7,000 and 8,000 of our youngest, brightest,

and well-educated young people leaving this Province every year, but that is what is

happening. If that happens, we have lay-offs occurring because we cannot afford to be able

to keep them, or jobs, even in the civil service.

A couple of days ago I noted, and I have been doing it over the last

three or four weeks, the articles in the paper by Dr. Doug House. He talks about the Irish

experience. We should all be reading those articles by Dr. House. While we cannot just

take the Irish example and transplant it to Newfoundland, we should read it, because a

good bit of it we can learn from it. The Irish people had many of the same problems we

have here in this Province, and they began to tackle them aggressively. They concentrated

on the education of their young people.

I support the initiatives that have been put forward in reforming

education. I have made that quite clear from the first time I spoke in this House. I

supported the initiatives then and I support them now, because anything we can do to

improve the education of our children we should be doing. However, if you listen to Dr.

House he will tell you that we have to start removing the barriers that impede the young

people of this Province from reaching their full potential.

We know that young people are not born equally. They are born in

families that are unequal from the time of the child's birth, and we know that it depends

on where you are born, it depends on what families you are born in. I am talking here only

about socio-economic factors. We know that if you happen to be born in certain parts of

this Province, the probability you will have an opportunity to go to university or

post-secondary is higher than if you are born in some other place. You only have to look

at the drop-out rates in various parts of this Province. The child is, in some cases,

disadvantaged before they even get to school.

When I was part of the Select Committee on Children's Interests we

identified the fact that we have to put more money and attention into early intervention.

I don't see in this Budget the kind of early intervention strategies I would say should be

the focus of this government. Yet, we know that every month we wait and don't intervene

positively in a young child's life, we have missed an opportunity for that child to grow

and develop in the way the child should.

For example, it has been proven - I have said this here before - that

the opportune time for intervention in a young child's life is between the ages of

eighteen months and thirty-six months. That has been proven conclusively. I say to the

minister, she should read the articles. The Minister of Health is saying no, but she

should read the

article in Time . It is how a child's brain develops. The research

is there. She should talk to Dr. J. O'Sullivan at the university. I want to say to the

minister that these are the opportune times to seek active intervention to change

behaviour patterns and that kind of thing.

I do not want to get into an argument with the minister as to what is

the most opportune time, except to say to the minister - and I know she has committed

herself to early intervention - that we have to do more to interact with children before

they ever get into the school system, and the minister knows this. We know that young

children, by the time they are in Grade II or Grade III, or in some cases Grade I,

teachers are predicting who is going to stay in school, who is going to graduate and not

going to graduate. They can do that with 90 per cent or 95 per cent accuracy. This says

something about our ability to be able to intervene positively into a young child's life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of more comments. I do understand

that we will be stopping momentarily at 4:00 p.m. so the Speaker can announce the Late

Show items. I want to make a comment about the news that was on CBC this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The Assistant Clerk just

said she had given me the wrong note and I have more time than she had indicated, but I do

understand that we are stopping at 4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a note of the comments, seeing that the

Minister of Mines and Energy is here. CBC this morning had some disturbing news about

Voisey's Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: CBC this morning, the commentaries about Voisey's

Bay, Inco, the smelter, and other kinds of things. If the minister listened to CBC this

morning - I am sure he did - he had to be somewhat concerned about the information that

was been communicated on CBC this morning relative to the possibility that Voisey's Bay

may not be as -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he could please take his seat so I can

announce the questions for the Late Show today.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will continue in a few

moments.

MR. SPEAKER: The first question is: I am dissatisfied with the

answer provided by the Minister of Justice to my question re the youth centre. That is the

hon. Member for St. John's East.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Premier to my

question on the claw-back of National Child Benefits. That is the hon. Member for St.

John's West.

The third is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the

Minister of Environment and Labour re the soot ash from the Grace. That is the hon. Member

for St. John's South.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I was making reference, before the hon.

Speaker announced the questions for the Late Show, to the CBC commentary this morning. The

indication on CBC, with the reporter, caused me some great concern, actually. There was

some indication there that the deposit might not be as rich as they thought it was. There

was some indication that it might only be good for eighteen years as opposed to the

expectation of thirty years. Also, there was some commentary as well, I would say to the

minister, some comments on the smelter, that the company may not want to proceed with the

smelter and the refinery at this time. There are some real issues, I say to the minister,

which is part of the - it was mentioned in the public airways this morning. This was a

report done by CBC; I forget the reporter's name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Well, it had been done in consultation with several

of the industry - analysts, they call them, and they did not identify all the sources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: It was not said. Well, I say to the hon. minister

that any delay in Voisey's Bay, any delay or changing the commitment on Voisey's Bay,

particularly as it relates to the smelter, whether it is going to be built at all, whether

there is going to be a smelter and a refinery, all of these things and any changes to that

certainly has implications for Newfoundland's long-term budgetary issues. I am only

mentioning it here because it is - in the Budget the Minister of Finance of course, in

doing his analysis, indicated that some of our data is, of course, put together with

certain assumptions relative to the mega-projects of places like Voisey's Bay, Churchill

Falls, the Lower Churchill, the Terra Nova Development, Hibernia and all of these things.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of Mines and Energy is very

familiar with these things and I am sure that either he or his staff had listened to these

reports this morning and I suspect the minister was all ready this afternoon to answer

very specific questions on these matters.

MR. FUREY: I did not hear the report (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the minister that I was driving in at the

time and listening to it but I did not make note of the source, except that it was a

report on CBC.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted - before my few moments are up - to also speak

about some of the student issues. Last week we heard the Minister of Finance announce that

there would be a sizable infusion of money to fill in this gap between the federal

government scholarship fund, the millennium fund and, of course, the two years that we

have to wait until that kicks in. That was encouraging, a step in the right direction.

However, when we found out later in the week that this money is only going to be available

to public institutions and not available to private institutions, and while we say that

having 4,000 scholarships of $1,000 each is a good idea and we encourage that, it is

difficult to explain to a father and mother living in, let us say, Come By Chance, that

their son or daughter cannot have equal access because their son or daughter is going to

Keyin Tech or going to the Career Academy or somewhere like that.

Now, these people who are paying the taxes to make the money available,

they paid their money in, too, and it would make sense, if we are going to have a

scholarship fund, that we make it available equally to all of the post-secondary students

in the Province. Why should a worker in Pouch Cove pay into the tax base, pay in the

money, and then the government say, we are going to put out four thousand $1,000

scholarships and they are going to be only available, though, if your son or daughter is

going to Memorial University or is going to the College of the North Atlantic, or some

other publicly-funded institution. As a matter of fact, it seems that would be a very

unjust thing for the government to do. I say to all hon. members opposite that they should

think about what it means to ordinary families. It is not right that some young person,

who is going to a private college, cannot have access to that money. That does not make

any sense, and yet that seems to be the decision made by the government.

All I am asking is: Is it reasonable to use taxpayers' money in that

way? Or will the government give an income tax refund to families whose children are going

to private colleges? We have to have fairness, we have to have reasonableness, and this

particular program whereby we are only going to make those scholarships available to those

going to public institutions is totally ludicrous, it should not happen. We know the cost

of going to a private college is a lot more than the cost of going to a publicly-funded

college. In fact, if you look on the basis of need, you would have to come to the

conclusion that the people who are in the private colleges have greater needs financially

than those who are going to publicly-funded colleges.

In some cases, they have no choice, depending on what career they are

going to take. Let me use an example. Say you were going to study aviation, you want to go

into aviation as a career choice. You only have one place to do that in this area, and

that is at the Career Academy. So a young man or woman who wants to study aviation to

become a pilot cannot go to a publicly-funded institution and is not eligible for one of

those $1,000 scholarships. That does not make any sense whatsoever, and I call upon the

government to look at the inequities of that, and to try to address it in a manner that

gives every young man and woman in this Province an opportunity to be treated equally.

Because your son or daughter is going to a private college should not mean they should be

treated any differently from anybody else.

I wanted as well to talk about some of the social responsibilities of

government. I had a very sad thing happen a few days ago. I had a call from a senior

citizen in my district, and the senior wanted me to come visit them. I went in to visit

this lady and was told by her that with the little pension she had, she could not really

make ends meet. She was not able to pay her rent, pay her heat and light, and pay for her

transportation needs. She did not have a car, she had to take taxis everywhere she went.

In fact, while I was there, she opened up her fridge door and it was empty.

Some of our seniors out there cannot make it without help. In fact, a

study done by Dr. Chandra, who is an internationally known researcher, shows that one in

four of our seniors in this Province are nutritionally at risk. In this particular case,

for the senior I am talking about, that person had to go to get help from the Society of

St. Vincent de Paul and use one of the food banks they are operating. We, in this House,

should know that there are seniors in this Province today who have to go to food banks,

and that is a shameful thing.

I just want to say to all hon. members, that we should know the reality

of what it means to be getting older in this Province, and how there is a real face to

those real problems. While, Mr. Speaker, we can say there are benefits of old age

assistance, there are benefits of pensions, when you talk to a senior, as I did -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: A couple of minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. H. HODDER: No leave, Mr. Speaker. Well, thank you very much.

They do not want to hear about seniors' issues.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, just if I could take a minute to address

the hon. member's comments, vis--vis the Voisey's Bay project. He mentioned - and I just

jotted a few notes down here - that there was an

article on this morning, and this could

affect the Budget, the

article said; the Voisey's Bay project and the speculative piece

that was on this morning was in some way tied in to the Budget debate and could affect the

Budget. Is that what I heard him say?

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

MR. H. HODDER: What I was commenting on, Mr. Speaker, was the fact

that the Budget is premised on the performance of certain mega projects, and that when the

Minister of Finance read the Budget it was referring particularly to the expectations of

all of the mega projects, that he said he wanted to get away from (inaudible) Social

Budget. The report on CBC this morning did cause me some concern, because it drew into

question the whole Voisey's Bay development.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his clarification.

We all understand that this is a very complex project, Mr. Speaker. It has a multiplicity

of elements that have to come together to make it happen. The business of the delay: I

think Inco themselves, when they announced the one-year delay, said that the company was

having great difficulty meeting the requirements of the environmental assessment process

as it relates to the mine and mill in Labrador.

The public deadline now, of course, is April 1, and the panel decision

on the adequacy of whether this EIS is presented properly is due on May 1. If everything

is in order, then what happens, of course, is there is a forty-five day period for public

input. At that time, if there is no public input, or if there is public input where the

company can show there are mitigating circumstances against any of that public input, then

the earliest time frame you will see it is probably November or December of this year.

If there are complex issues that enter into the equation during this

public debate, that says this EIS does not address the following circumstances, whether it

be tailings from the mine or whatever, and the panel chooses to adjudicate that indeed the

process does not address these issues, then we could be into further delay. So that is the

issue with respect to the EIS as it relates to the mine and mill.

As it relates to the smelter and refinery, as you know, there is a

court decision pending before the Federal Court of Canada, that was brought on by the

Council of Mining Citizens, I think they call themselves. I think the proposition that

they put before the court was that the project should be merged. The smelter and refinery

is not a stand-alone project, they would argue, and that it ought to be merged with the

mine and mill and therefore there ought to be one full environmental hearing on this