March 31,

1993 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 17

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl raised a point of

privilege yesterday concerning the failure of Memorial University to comply with

a request of the committee pursuant to Standing Order 84(

e) to appear at a

hearing of the committee. On December 1, 1992, the hon. member reported to the

House on behalf of the committee, the refusal of the University to appear. The

matter was not raised as a point of privilege at that time.

The facts are the same now as they were then. A point of

privilege relating to committee proceedings must be reported by the committee to

the House as a point of privilege and must be raised in a timely fashion, this

is Beauchesne, paragraph 107. "Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the

claim," Beauchesne, 6th Edition, paragraph 115.

The facts which obtained in December 1992 were the same as

those reported on by the hon. member yesterday. The matter should have been

raised in December, as a point of privilege, in order to comply with the

requirement that a point of privilege must be raised at the earliest

opportunity. I refer hon. members to a ruling of our Speaker of December 13,

1984, when a delay of a few days invalidated a claim of breach of privilege. I

therefore rule that in this instance a prima facie case of privilege has not

been established.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker:

It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to table for this

House a copy of "Changing Tides: A Consultative Document on the Future of the

Fishery." This comprehensive document encompasses 39 policy framework proposals.

Its principal objective is to build a viable fishery that is regionally

balanced, one that is stable and competitive in the absence of government

subsidies, and one in which highly skilled men and women can earn an adequate

income without dependence on income maintenance payments.

As the title of the document suggests, Mr. Speaker, this is a

discussion document. We welcome the views of the public at large and of those

directly involved with the fishing industry in particular on the proposed policy

framework for the future of the fishery. With this in mind, public meetings are

being arranged throughout the Province so that as many people as possible will

have an opportunity to directly present their views.

The engine of change for the fishery of the future must be

driven by a policy framework that is responsive, remedial and responsible. Major

public changes will be necessary if the fishery is to emerge as a vibrant and

stable sector of the Province's economy as stocks rebuild. These changes, Mr.

Speaker, must address the fundamental structural weaknesses which have tended to

generate relative instability in the fishing industry. This is the challenge my

department accepted, Sir, when we undertook a comprehensive analysis of all

aspects of our fishing industry and developed this document which I am tabling

today.

Effective and responsive change will not occur overnight. We

must ensure that the policy decisions of today will bring about greater

stability for future generations. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if we

reflect carefully on these critical policy decisions, the most appropriate

decisions will be taken, and we will successfully rebuild a viable and

prosperous fishery.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to point out that

there is not a single Newfoundlander or Labradorian who does not have either a

direct or an indirect vested interest in the ongoing performance of the fishery.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to avail

of the opportunity to study this document and to present their views. I invite

all members of this honourable House, Mr. Speaker, both sides, to do likewise

and, where possible, attend the public meetings that will be held around the

Province very soon. I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, it is a discussion document,

a discussion document.

Thank you very much.

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

Member for Grand Bank.

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

I would like to give a brief reaction to this, just having

received the minister's statement since I came to the House and having seen the

new document, "Changing Tides" - a most appropriate title, I say to the Minister

of Fisheries. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that, with the fisheries there

definitely are changing tides and I think, politically, in this Province, there

certainly are changing tides, so it is most appropriately titled, I say to the

minister.

Mr. Speaker, the minister references that there are

thirty-nine policy framework proposals and that they are going around the

Province to have public meetings so that as many people as possible will have an

opportunity to direct and present their views. Now, I want to say that there

have been more public meetings and conferences and forums on the future of the

Newfoundland fishery in the last twelve months than I guess there ever have been

in our history. Now, having said that, we are going through a very serious

crisis in our fishery, a very critical stage in the history of our Province when

it comes to our most traditional industry, the fishery, and I guess, Mr.

Speaker, as with a lot of other government documents that we have seen within

the last few weeks in this House, including the Budget, but there is a lot of

vagueness and rhetoric contained in between those covers, and I think

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians tonight, when they see the news and listen to

the news, are going to ask: What plans do this government have for the fishery

and for the economy of this Province?

Once again, of course, what do they get? A nicely packaged

document full of vagueness and rhetoric. That is what this Minister of Fisheries

and this government has given to the people of this Province who are looking for

a future in the Newfoundland fishery.

There is nothing in this document that is going to sustain

jobs in the fishery, that is going to create new jobs in the fishery, and I say

to the minister I think it is time that he made a commitment to the people of

this Province that he and his government will look at value-added secondary

processing in this Province to sustain jobs and to create new jobs, and not just

put rhetoric in a book, hoping to keep the people of this Province happy for

another thirty or sixty days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

some questions with respect to the Strategic Economic Plan.

Last year's Budget, I guess, as well as this year's Budget,

both were pretty bleak documents, certainly in the opinion of the majority of

the people, I think, in this Province. The only ray of hope that at least was

touted in last year's Budget was the government's plan to spend $3.1 million, he

may recall, to begin the implementation of the government's Strategic Economic

Plan.

That $3.1 million last year was the cornerstone of the

Budget. It was announced with a lot of hoopla, and in fact in the end, when you

look at the revised figures in the Budget, they only spent half of it - $1.5

million.

Now given that the Strategic Economic Plan is supposed to be

our salvation, I suppose, for the long-term future of the Province, I want to

ask the Premier: Why is it then you were only able to spend half of that money,

about $1.5 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member will, of course, know that

the Budget was prepared in February and early March. The Strategic Economic Plan

was finalized and filed the middle of June, I think, so three months of the

fiscal year were gone by even before, and it was an estimated amount. Besides,

last year was a year when we had to be as stringent with expenditures as we

possibly could, and that explains the situation last year.

Now I dare say we could have said: Well the money is there,

spend it anyway. But we are a more responsible government than that. Where we

can avoid expenditures in a year when we are having financial difficulties we

have tried to do so.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thanks to the Premier for the answer. A rather

interesting response, to say the least. Again if you look at the Budget

documents you will see that of that $1.5 million that was spent on page 19 of

the Budget document, of the estimates at least, a little over $1 million was

spent on personnel and administration, and $530,000 was spent on grants and

subsidies.

Now surely a program that costs over two dollars in

administration to every one dollar spent on projects can't be the Premier's idea

of a prosperous path to economic recovery. Can the Premier tell the House what

precisely that money was spent on? How was that money spent? That $1 million in

personnel and administration and $530,000 in grants and subsidies.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. member will of course realize

that one of the key things we had to do was some re-organization. We divided the

old Department of Development into the new Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology and the Department of Tourism and Culture. A good deal of it was

re-organization preparing for implementation of the plan. I don't have the

actual specifics in front of me at the moment but I will undertake to get them

and table them. Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier

another supplementary on this same topic. In the Budget documents you will see

that $235,000 was spent on salaries. Now at the going rate I suppose that's

equivalent to maybe five employees, five full-time jobs. I don't know, the

Premier can tell us.

MR. MATTHEWS: Four or five.

MR. SIMMS: Four or five. If so can he tell us this? Why

would four or five employees need $70,000 for travel, $95,000 for furniture, and

another $10,000 for supplies? Isn't that a bit luxurious even by the Premier's

standards?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely not, so far as I know. I don't

know the details but I will get the details and table them for the hon. member.

I don't carry all of that information around in my head. See, what the hon.

member forgets is the Strategic Economic Plan covers all aspects of government.

If they look to the Budget this year they'll see just that. The Strategic

Economic Plan covers all aspects of it. So I can't tell him where the figures

are or what was involved but I will undertake to get the figures and table them.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder if the Premier would also when he's

checking answer this question: is it possible that some of the cost of furniture

- that $95,000 and the like for the Premier's office - was actually charged off

to this particular subhead? Strategic Economic Plan. Is that possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely not possible. That's one thing

I can say with certainty, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: It's interesting that he knows that absolutely

for certain but can't answer the other questions. Let me ask him one final

question, Mr. Speaker.

This year in the Budget Estimates you will find that you have

budgeted now $4.7 million for the same thing, Strategic Economic Plan, but it is

all budgeted under purchased services. This year it is budgeted under purchased

services. Now, I want to ask the Premier, what happened to the staff, what

happened to the furniture, what happened to the supplies and all the other

apparatus that was built up during last year's Budget? Can he explain that to

us? Where has that disappeared?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many

million will be spent under the directions of the Strategic Economic Plan this

year. There is $4.7 there in block funding but that is only a portion of it. I

will get the details and bring it before the House, the exact details of it, but

where we knew with certainty a specific action, say action item 49 was going to

be implemented and it involved the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations, the money was put directly in that department's budget where we knew

the specifics and exactly what was going to be done. There is money in that

department's budget to do it. The same applies to Tourism and Culture, the same

applies to Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to Industry, Trade and Technology

and so on, so there is a good deal more than the 4.7.

The 4.7 is there because we had already received a number of

requests for expenditures under the Strategic Economic Plan which had not yet

received final approval. What hon. members may not know is that there is an

implementation committee and none of the money set aside specifically for the

Strategic Economic Plan in the bulk amount, like the 4.7, can be spent without

going through that implementation committee. It is a committee of senior public

servants. There are no politicians on it at all. It is a committee of senior

public servants and that money is allocated as the need arises and as the need

is justified. There have been numerous requests. Needless to say many

departments have found this an ingenious method to look for a little extra money

but it has to meet and be used to carry out a specific objective of the 134

specific action items.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I would like to direct a question to the

Minister of Finance. The minister announced that funding was cut off for new

school construction in 1993-94 and in his post Budget comments he referred to a

study that government is undertaking to determine school construction

priorities. I ask the minister what would be the form of that study and when

does he expect that the study will get underway?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is an ongoing process within

the Department of Education where we are having a look at school construction

and school construction priorities in the Province. Eventually we'll have to

make decisions in terms of the amount of money put into school construction.

I should point out to the hon. gentleman that this year we're

experiencing very difficult financial circumstances and we had to have a

reduction in capital expenditures as well as a reduction in current

expenditures. One of the things we decided was that several major projects,

capital projects, in the health and justice field would not go ahead, as well as

no new construction in the education field would go ahead. So these are the

decisions that we made to meet our budgetary objectives, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assume the

minister is aware that school construction has been the subject of a major

Department of Education study for the past two years. An executive director was

brought in over the past two years to coordinate the study which has cost

several hundred thousand dollars over the past two years. So is he saying now

the results of this have been a waste of time the last two years and they do not

now know what the priorities are after an ongoing study for two years?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we say no such thing. We have

to have a look at what's been done. But in the interim, regardless of the

direction that that study has taken - we still had a very serious financial

problem. We had to cut capital. We've cut it the only places where we could cut

capital. Unfortunately we had to delay many construction projects in this

Province during this fiscal year because of our difficult financial times.

That's a reality, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the minister is

saying that it's not a matter of having a study to establish construction

priorities, because that's already there. So is the minister now saying it's

just a matter of dollars they're going to spend? It's strictly a budgetary

thing. It's not a school construction priority. The government has said it wants

more cooperation among denominations. Is the minister aware that there are

several proposals for joint service schools now available and wanting funding to

reduce inefficiency within the system? So is the government's action not

preventing cooperation and further sharing among denominations?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm also aware of many roads that

need to be built. I'm also aware of hospitals that need work. I'm also aware of

courthouses that need to be replaced and work that needs to be done on many

other public buildings in the Province. I'm aware of all these needs.

In the past four years we've put $101 million into new school

construction. This year we are continuing the construction that's there. We have

decided for one year, because of our financial circumstances and because we need

to have a look at, in the process we're going through school construction money,

we had decided not to do any new projects in this field. I don't know what the

hon. gentleman is so confused about. It's not one or the other. It's a

combination of circumstances, not the least of which is the financial mess that

you people put this Province in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Basically, if I read the minister correctly

he's stating that the study that he referred to the government is intending to

make and to carry out is already being carried out, and in reality there is no

real study going on at all now. It's just an ongoing one for two years and it

still hasn't established priorities. Is that what the minister is saying?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. We're going through a process

in cooperation with the denominations that hopefully will change the face of

education in this Province and change the way money is spent in this Province.

We're undergoing that process, and that process has not been finished, not

nearly finished. We have a Royal Commission report and there are many things in

that that we're also looking at that I'm sure the Minister of Education could

speak on for hours in great detail.

I've described the situation exactly as it is. I've indicated

to the hon. gentleman the various pressures that we face in terms of new

construction. I've indicated to him the reason why we've decided to stop

construction in many areas of government, not just this area of government, Mr.

Speaker, and I would hope he could understand that.

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

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

a question for the Premier. I have been given some information recently that a

truckload of furniture was diverted from the Confederation Building to

Pleasantville for some temporary storage in one of the buildings in that area of

St. John's. Will the Premier confirm that this was some new furniture for his

eighth floor offices, or some new floor for the penthouse he is building, some

new furniture for the Cabinet room on the eleventh?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If we were to have all of the furniture

they think is going on the eighth floor we would have to triple the size of it,

Mr. Speaker. Do they think the people of this Province are so utterly stupid as

to accept those kinds of propositions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, indeed, they must think they are

that stupid. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province know the difference,

and know the Goebbels technique when they see it: Throw out the big lie; it

doesn't matter that there is no truth in it - throw out the big lie. It is like

the $600 doorknob.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say again, if there is a $600 doorknob

on my floor, Mr. Peckford put it there, because there isn't a doorknob on the

floor that wasn't there when I took office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I take it from that answer that there is furniture in

Pleasantville for his office. Mr. Speaker, I have also been given information

that included in that load of furniture were several sheets of plywood to board

up the windows of the building in which the furniture is stored - to hide it

away until it can be brought up to this building under the dark of night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Don't laugh, boys!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know there have been new

sheets of plywood put up to the windows of Building 907 in Pleasantville. Will

the Premier confirm that this is where he is hiding away his furniture until it

can be moved up here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have it

wrong. He is going back to 1979, when they had the Gibbard mahogany bedroom

suite ordered for the Premier, when they ordered the crystal and the china, when

they ordered the Gibbard mahogany dining room suite for the Premier.

The hon. member has it all wrong. He should come to his

senses.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier confirm - I take from his last

answer that yes, it is in Building 907. He did not deny that. Can the Premier

also confirm that there have been huge amounts of excellent quality furniture

taken out of this Confederation Building over the past two years and stored in

government-owned buildings at Torbay Airport, while the ministers and the

Premier continue to buy furniture for their offices?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge,

everything the hon. member has said today is a total fabrication. Now, whether

he fabricated it or somebody is giving him the information and he sincerely

believes it, I don't know, but I can tell the House that everything the hon.

member said is a complete fabrication.

You see, they think we are getting close to an election, so

they are out there now: throw out the big lie, try to smear as much as you can.

That technique is so transparent and so well-known that the voters of this

Province are not going to be misled by any such utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not about an election, this is about

extravagance, when public servants are asked to give up their pensions.

Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Will the minister confirm that he spent

$10,000 renovating his washrooms over in the new building.

AN HON. MEMBER: The west block.

MR. R. AYLWARD: In the west block. Will he also confirm

that he spent $3,500 on new vinyl wallpaper for his office for new decorating?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't find the washroom

they spent ten thousand dollars on. I know I moved out of it late last year, and

when I came back someone had removed a wall. I don't know if that cost $10,000

or not, but someone had removed it to put a garage door in there, so I could fit

in and out of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: I do not know if it cost $10,000, but it is a

good garage door. It is invisible. I cannot see the wall; it is gone anyway.

Mr. Speaker, there is no vinyl covering, that I know of, on

the walls. As a matter of fact, the last time I had occasion to speak about the

walls, I wrote the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and

asked him if he could lend me some soap and water so I could wash the dirt off

that was left on them when you were over there. I believe you did put in a new

venetian blind since I was there. I do not know if they put that there while I

was away or since I have been back.

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

for Kilbride.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be much cheaper for them to send him

into New World Fitness than to renovate the office to try to get him in.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to table in this

House of Assembly, the cost of the renovations to his office since he went

there, under the 1991-1992 Budget? Will he supply this House with those figures,

as soon as he can get them?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, if they are going to send me to

New World Fitness, I hope they use the same truck they used for the furniture so

no one will see me going there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: I would suggest, with all due respect, Mr.

Speaker, they would have lots to work with, so it might cost the amount of money

they are talking about. The cost, I guess, they will have to get from the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I didn't do any work on it, but

if there is cost involved I will certainly ask for it.

MR. FLIGHT: It didn't cost $75,000.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Several

months ago the minister announced an interest relief program for boat owners,

fishermen. I wonder if the minister could explain for the House what the status

of that interest relief program is now, where it might be and when boat owners

may expect to get some things processed?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are providing some

relief for fishermen who have direct loans through the Fisheries Loan Board and

guaranteed loans through the banks. There are a number of applicants, various

fishermen from various parts of the Island, applying for the interest write-off,

and those people will be contacted within the next day or two. We are going to

proceed with it and they will be so advised.

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

House Leader.

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

I have been told that there has been a hang-up at Treasury

Board, I say to the present Treasury Board, that it has been hung up there for a

considerable period of time. There was a while processing the claims and now

that there have been forty-seven or fifty processed that is still at Treasury

Board. Can either the Minister of Fisheries or the President of Treasury Board

explain why it is taking so long to get this through the system and why those

boat owners have had to wait so long for that? Because, apparently, there has

been a real hang-up at Treasury Board, I am told.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As with any significant financial measure, Mr. Speaker, it

always undergoes a great deal of study in Treasury Board. We believe in making

sure of what we do and, indeed, there were a couple of weeks where various

aspects of the plan had to be studied, the financial implications and so on. It

has recently been finally dealt with and the people will be notified very

shortly, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary to the President of Treasury Board.

I have had a number of calls into my office over the last

number of days from fishermen who are expecting to get some relief from the

program. I am wondering: Could the minister inform us what the cost of this

program will be to the Province and when, specifically, can boat owners expect

to receive the relief?

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

President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to put an exact

figure on it because there are certain conditions attached. However, I suspect

that the first run through will result in a cost of somewhere between $300,000

and $400,000 to the Province.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Will she stop Newfoundland Power from building and using a PC

storage facility near Chance Cove?

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

Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: I don't think we will need too much room for

storage of those individuals, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll open up a new jail for them.

MS. COWAN: Newfoundland Light and Power have asked my

department for permission to store PCBs in that particular area of the Province.

We are looking at the registration and the decision is due tomorrow as to

whether or not they could go ahead with this facility, whether it requires a

more in-depth look or, if we will have to go for a full environmental

assessment.

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

Extern, a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: I have to make a comment to those laughing

hyenas over there. The only comment I have is, we will see.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm the PCB storage

facility was rejected by the City of Mount Pearl and by the Town of Paradise,

and would be rejected by every other municipality in the Province, but

Newfoundland Power has avoided local governments by building just outside the

municipal boundaries of Chance Cove?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: The hon. gentleman does have one fact wrong

there. The proponent, Newfoundland Light and Power actually withdrew their

application from Mount Pearl, it wasn't turned down by the town. However,

indeed, Paradise did, in fact, refuse to give them the necessary go-ahead that

they needed. They are still entitled to an environment registering and, when I

look at the registration and make my decision I will take into account any of

the concerns that have been put forward to me by the people in that area.

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

Extern, a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: My next question is to the Minister of

Tourism and Culture.

Is the Minister of Tourism and Culture prepared to take a

stand on the issue? There is a provincial park in the area, wildlife and

hunting. What is his position? Is he for or against storing hazardous waste in

that particular area?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, like most members on this side, I

believe first and foremost that everybody should be given the opportunity to

present their case. We have probably one of the strongest pieces of legislation

in the country - not just in Atlantic Canada but in all of Canada - to deal with

environmental problems and concerns, and I have all the faith in the world that

the system will carry itself through, and that anything that needs to come

forward will be dealt with by the Minister of Environment and Lands, in whom I

have absolute faith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern, a final supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: My question now, Mr. Speaker, is to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

This project can be stopped by the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. It is in the Hibernia impact area and that department must

issue a building permit. Will the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

deny Newfoundland Power a permit to build this hazardous waste facility?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I won't, out of hand -

MR. PARSONS: Answer the question, boy. Don't give a

worried answer.

MR. HOGAN: I am not worried. I am just waiting for the

conversation to end that is babbling back and forth across the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked the question so let us wait for the

minister's answer.

The hon. the minister.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. member I would say, no, we will not out of hand

deny any permit for that particular storage, however I will go back to the

remarks in the petition that was made the other day, that this particular

application will be closely scrutinized by the Department of Environmental

Affairs and there have been recommendations made by myself as an adjacent member

and by the member for the area, and there have been recommendations forthcoming

from the various villages and towns surrounding that particular area. I am sure

the Department of the Environment will take all those recommendations into

consideration when making their decision, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: My question is for the Premier and concerns

the problem caused by this government's action against the non-governmental

organizations and social agencies that reside in King George V Institute and

also resided in the Harvey Road premises owned by the government. Today is the

date that these organizations were to be kicked out of the King George V

Institute and the government was to implement its policy of removing support for

these agencies for accommodations, some of which have had space from the

government for twenty years. Is there any hope the Premier is going to reverse

this unjust policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question

I am sure all hon. members will support my extending a most warm and sincere

welcome to a former Speaker of this House in the person of Mr. George Clarke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: He was Speaker of this House when I was

elected in 1966 and he served as Speaker during all those turbulent years and I

am happy to see the warm welcome that Mr. Clarke received.

Now, to answer the hon. member's question, most of what he

said was incorrect. It was a gross exaggeration and distortion of reality but I

suppose it serves a political purpose. The hon. member may be aware, I think it

was last week, it was one day last week, we meet with a representative group of

all the people involved and we took steps at that time to try and deal with a

difficult situation. It is totally incorrect to say that the support government

gives those agencies has been withdrawn. Government has given a number of

agencies some level of support. It would be true to say that the building they

occupied on Harvey Road, those who did, was burned-down and government has not

given them replacement areas up till now, and it is true to say that the King

George V Institute is going to be closed for building quality reasons and the

people there, up to this point, have not been provided with definite alternative

facilities. Now, whether or not government will be able to do something over the

next few weeks only time will tell. I just wanted to make sure that the hon.

member's distortion of it does not stand unchallenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a series of

questions made by my friend for Grand Bank and I promised to get the information

back to the House within twenty-four hours.

The first question was: was a loan ever given to Trinity

Brick from the provincial government or ENL? The answer is yes. The Enterprise

Corporation - I checked the facts out with them, and they did issue an equity

investment on May 16 1991. That was approved for the brick manufacturing plant

at Milton. It's the only one in the Province. It was provided to maintain the

forty-two local jobs that were there. At the time of the approval the principals

had equity of $400,000 into it.

The second question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I don't mind. I'll just quickly - I won't read

everything. The second one was: is Trinity Brick up for sale? As far as we know

it is. There has been a group of individuals who have approached the corporation

and put forward a business plan. That's being analyzed now and it's being dealt

with through the banks and through the corporation. I don't think it would be

fair to name the company while they're in negotiations so I won't do that.

The next one: what's happened to the loan? The loan was put

in place during a low period during the construction period. It was put in place

to allow them to build an inventory, which they did. The trigger mechanism was

the kick-in repayments on July of this year. There are various securities in

place against the loan as well.

The last thing I think the member asked was: was the

application put forward twice and turned down twice? I spoke with the senior

office from the corporation this morning who dealt with this particular

portfolio in May of 1991 and he tells me: no, it was brought forward once and

approved by the board.

I'll table this, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

present petitions signed by 3,048 citizens of the Corner Brook area who reside

in three electoral districts - Bay of Islands, Humber West and Humber East.

These petitions were initiated by cancer patients who live in Mount Moriah and

Benoit's Cove in Humber Arm South in Bay of Islands.

I'll read the petitions first. One petition says as follows:

whereas the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not seen fit to continue

funding for a visiting specialists' cancer clinic at Western Memorial Regional

Hospital, and

whereas Corner Brook and Western Newfoundland medical facilities

are not equipped with required health maintenance technology for cancer patients

in the region, and

whereas in accordance with provincial statistics

approximately 50,000 people in Western Newfoundland are directly affected by

cancer, we the people here undersigned demand that government address these

matters promptly, re-establish the patient services clinic, and provide any

equipment necessary to keep cancer care at home here on the West Coast.

The other petition reads: to all residents of the West Coast

of our Province, our cancer clinic has been closed out. We are in need of

medical help just as the East Coast of the Province is. We have to show the

government that they need to listen to us. By signing this petition you will be

showing your support to have our cancer clinic re-opened so we also can have a

fighting chance at life. If you are a cancer patient please leave your telephone

number.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, these petitions have been signed by

3,048 citizens of the Corner Brook area.

These people are pleading with the government to act. They've

seen the government shamelessly neglect services for cancer patients outside St.

John's. Since last September, for the last seven months, there have been no

visits by the cancer specialists based in St. John's with the foundation in St.

John's to outreach clinics in Burin, Grand Falls or Corner Brook. For twenty-one

years previous to that, all during the 1970s and the 1980s, cancer specialists

visited those outreach clinics regularly and at the clinics gave cancer patients

from the respective regions regular checkups and services that they need.

Since September, cancer patients from all over the Province

have been expected to come to St. John's, even for routine checkups and, Mr.

Speaker, for the most part, the cancer patients and their families have had to

bear all the cost of the travel and accommodations in St. John's on their own.

Government assistance to defray transportation and accommodations cost is

minimal.

Just yesterday, I had an experience with a cancer patient in

Corner Brook, a patient who recently had surgery and has to have six weeks of

radiation therapy in St. John's beginning next week. That person, a senior

citizen, isn't able to afford the travel and accommodations cost. For the first

time in her life, she had to go to the Department of Social Services, and

despite all the documentation she showed the department, current guidelines

would not authorize any more assistance to her other than the cost of her

accommodation at the Health Sciences hostel, and a $15-a-day meal allowance.

Social services wouldn't cover the $128.50 bus fare for that patient to come to

St. John's and return home - shameful, Mr. Speaker!

Not only are cancer patients in Western Newfoundland fighting

to regain services we had for twenty-one years, but lost through the neglect of

the Wells Administration, they are now seeking radiation therapy in Western

Newfoundland at the Western Memorial Regional Hospital clinic.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an unreasonable request. According

to experts I have consulted, we can look at the situation in the Maritime

Provinces. In New Brunswick, there are radiation facilities and services

provided both in St. John and in Moncton. There is a limited amount of radiation

service provided in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, nearby - PEI having a

population of only about 120,000. In Nova Scotia, Sydney is now getting a

radiation clinic. Here, in this Province, the government is embarking on

building a $13 million cancer clinic in St. John's, pledging part only of the

cost and expecting the Cancer Foundation to raise the balance.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be fairness. There has to be an

equitable distribution of services. We should have a decent service in Western

Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair was looking at some mail here and the hon. member

has gone way over time.

MS. VERGE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I

wholeheartedly support this petition.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this

petition.

I appreciate the concerns of people who have cancer and who

need cancer treatment in various parts of Newfoundland, but I will say that the

hon. member has been distorting the facts and has been doing so all summer. It

is really reprehensible what she has been doing, and I wish she would not

persist in that type of attitude.

The facts are that the cancer clinics are continuing to

operate in all these places that she has mentioned. What has happened is that

there is a desperate shortage of cancer specialists not only in this Province

but in other provinces of Canada and generally. It is not a matter of funds -

the funds are available to the Cancer Treatment Foundation - it is a matter of

the unavailability of people.

They have been working quite hard, and visits to these

clinics will be resumed shortly, because we have been able to get some new

staff. We had someone lined up last December who was supposed to come in in

January, but that person, due to a family illness, was unable to come and may

not be able to be here at all; but we have been able to get other people and we

hope that these clinics will resume. But I do take exception to the manner in

which the hon. member has distorted the facts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I have recognized the hon. Member for Terra

Nova. Is the hon. the Member for Terra Nova yielding?

MR. GREENING: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yielding - to the Member for Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to have a few words on the petition presented by my

colleague from Humber East. I have had the opportunity - it is not very often

you get the opportunity - to listen to the minister who is responsible for that

particular department, reply before the second person in the Opposition gets a

chance to speak in favour of a petition.

I want to say to the minister responsible for health in this

Province, and to all hon. members opposite, especially the Premier and any

members representing communities and districts on the West Coast and the

Northern Peninsula of this Province: if there is any member who doesn't realize

- and doesn't get a call pertaining to cancer patients on the West Coast of this

Province or haven't had them in the last month, then I say there is something

radically wrong.

I am getting them, Mr. Speaker, and it is a very serious

situation on the West Coast of the Province. Believe it or not, we are now, as

far as I am concerned, on the West Coast of this Province, being treated as

second class citizens in no uncertain terms.

A second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is this: We are

practising what I would refer to as crises medicine on the West Coast of the

Province. I know it - I go into the hospital once every couple of weeks and just

have a look around. All you have to do is go into the Intensive Care Unit and

look at it. All you have to do is talk to your constituents, the people who call

you, and see what is happening with cancer. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is

read your mail, read your correspondence about a lady, forty-nine years old,

dead from cancer on the West Coast of the Province - now, granted, I will say,

not specifically because there was no chemotherapy treatment in that hospital,

not specifically because the specialist here never got in; yes, there is

chemotherapy - yes, there is, at the hospital in Corner Brook. The unit is

there, some treatment is taking place and there is a lot that is not - no

radiation at all, they have to come here for radiation treatment.

AN HON. MEMBER: There never was radiation.

MR. WOODFORD: There never was, that is right. That is

what I am talking about - second class. And the other question, Mr. Speaker, is

this: If there are three specialists in St. John's, why can't we send one to

Corner Brook? If we only have three, why do they always have to be here? Why

can't we send one out?

DR. KITCHEN: There is no need of it.

MR. WOODFORD: And for the minister to say there is no

need of it -there is need of it. There is, and if the minister wants to contact

me afterwards, I can give him some of the names.

Mr. Speaker, the minister might not realize it, but this

administration is playing Russian roulette with the health care system in this

Province, especially as it pertains to the West Coast of the Province. The only

difference in this, Mr. Speaker, is Russian roulette with all chambers loaded.

They don't have a chance.

MR. FLIGHT: What happened to the seventeen years

(inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Never mind the seventeen years, the

minister can answer for the last four. I will answer for the previous seventeen

years, as well. If the minister can't stand the heat, let him get out of the

kitchen.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation, and I say to

members opposite, if there are three specialists in the St. John's area, at

least send one out. We are not going to save everybody even if we had a thousand

specialists, but at least, show that we are making an effort and let one

specialist go out until we get the other one, two or three put in place for

whatever is needed on the West Coast of the Province.

It is about time we got some recognition. It is about time we

started standing up and speaking for our constituents who elected us to come to

this House, especially with respect to medicine and health care.

For example, last week, Mr. Speaker, I had to intervene - it

took me three days to get a lady with a very serious heart condition, who was on

the corridor of the Intensive Care Unit in Corner Brook, out to St. John's. I

don't mind, I will go public if the family don't mind going public, if they

wanted to, if it is necessary. But finally I got her out. How many more don't

call me. How many more would not call their member? And why, really, should I

have to intervene to get on Medivac to St. John's, a person diagnosed with a

very severe heart condition? I should never have had to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. GREENING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise today to support the 209

people who signed this petition. It represents the parishes of St. Gabriel's,

St. Brendan's and the community of Coles Harbour.

The prayer of the petition reads: 'We, the undersigned, are

committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province. We

support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we

support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support

co-operation between the churches and education, especially shared service

schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other

people in our Province taken away, and we ask you, as our representatives, not

to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.'

These people whom I represent are adamant in their feelings

toward denominational education, all of whom fully support sharing, where

necessary, and certainly that can be attained within our present system. Also

they feel they have a right to send their children to the schools of their

choice, in this case, Roman Catholic Schools. Also, Mr. Speaker, they are clear

in thoughts and aspiration that no change can be made in their constitutional

rights. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition which is worded in an

identical manner to the hon. member's, so I will not read that, just in the

interest of saving some time. This is presented on behalf of the parishioners of

the Basilica and represents 1,437 signatures here, many of whom are in St.

John's Centre, some of whom are in St. John's West, some in St. John's East and

a variety of other people who worship at the Basilica.

I want to say a few words on this petition and on similar

petitions that have been presented. We know that people hold their faith in a

very serious manner in this city, particularly in the area which I represent and

in the churches which are represented there. There has been considerable

sharing, as I have mentioned earlier, over the years through the Newfoundland

Teachers' Association. There has been co-operation in teacher training -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the hon. member that it is 3:00 p.m. and it

is Wednesday, so the Chair must call the item of business which is the private

members' resolution, or call it three -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: I want to say that there has been tremendous

co-operation in some areas and there has been quite a bit of co-operation in the

primary, secondary and elementary level, and undoubtedly, there will be more

co-operation. What it has required, I believe, is leadership. We need leadership

to encourage the co-operation where people want it. There hasn't been quite that

leadership shown, in my view, in the past number of years. But I believe this

gathering of petitions has been a tremendous exercise. It is almost like an

article of faith where people sign up and let everybody know that they really

believe in the schools to which they send their children. I think that the

Province will be all the better for it and religious education will be all the

better for this exercise, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, realizing it is Private

Members' Day, and not wanting to take time away from the Member for St. John's

South, I will do this now before he gets recognized, and then, I take his time.

Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the Estimates Committees: I say to

the Government House Leader, the Estimates Committees were referred on, I think

it was last Thursday, March 26, and Standing Order 120, page 38, says: "Each

committee shall, at the conclusion of fifteen sitting days following the

reference of estimates to it, put all questions, without debate, needed to carry

every subhead of each head of expenditure referred to it before making a report

to the House."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is Wednesday, the 31st, so we already

have four days gone and there have been no Estimates Committee meetings. So, I

want to rise on a point of order and hopefully get a response from the

Government House Leader. I mean, it is time, with respect to this Budget that

was brought down here - I think it was the 18th of March - that the committees

had a chance to scrutinize those Estimates, because time is running out, and

fifteen days -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) what I am doing.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the shoe

man? The shoemaker - what is the matter with him? This is a serious issue. We

want the Estimates scrutinized. We have fifteen sitting days, when the

Committees have to report. There are four days gone already, so I just wanted to

make the point to the Government House Leader to see what is going on and ask if

we are going to get on with this.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, let me

begin by saying, I don't pretend to know what is going on, in the sense that the

committees are masters of their own schedule. The hon. gentleman is quite

correct when he reminds us that 118(4) or whatever it is of the Marshall rules.

The hon. William Marshall, now Judge Marshall of the Court of Appeal, put those

rules through. I may say over my strenuous objections. My friend for Grand Falls

was in the Chair in those days and presided while this was done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend didn't know what strenuous is

and he shows us this every day. Let me come back to the point made by his

colleague the House Leader. Last night, as I said to the House, we understood we

might need to sit last evening. Hon. gentlemen opposite eventually decided -

AN HON. MEMBER: To give in.

MR. ROBERTS: No, they didn't give in. They did what they

said they'd do. They allowed the Interim Supply to get through -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Have I ever said anything to the contrary,

Mr. Speaker? I am told that hon. members opposite have told those on this side

who are responsible for the organization of the committees that they do not want

to sit this evening.

MR. NOEL: And they didn't have anybody last night.

MR. ROBERTS: It's not for me to give 'aye' or 'nay'.

These committees have been set up by the House and function. What I must say to

my hon. friend opposite is that if his colleagues do not want to sit tonight,

then they don't sit tonight. I know I speak for my friends on this side - that

if his colleagues opposite wish to sit tonight, I'm sure that the private

members on this side will be available. I can assure him - unless the Premier

does something (Inaudible) - that the ministers will be available. Whichever

ministers are scheduled to appear before the committees tonight will be

available.

I have to say, I hope I'm not down, because I'm scheduled to

go to Happy Valley - Goose Bay to open a broomball tournament. It's going to be

an interesting exercise.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the ball.

MR. ROBERTS: No, I'm going to be the broom. My friend for

Placentia here, he'd say he'd be the ball. We make a good team. I'm glad to be

on the same team as he is. But what I say, Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend is, if

the committees want to meet, there's certainly nothing that we've done that

prevents them. My understanding, and it may be a misunderstanding, is that

members on his side have said: let us not. I would suggest that the vice-chairs,

who sit on his side, meet with the chairs, who sit on our side, and the two of

them work it out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a brief

point.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'm one of the members on

the Government Services Committee who was asked by the chairman: do we want to

sit tonight? I actually said: I don't want to sit if we're not sitting. If there

are going to be meetings I will sit. I don't want to sit, but I will sit if

there are meetings. So if the Chair calls a meeting we have to go. We have no

choice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There's no point of order. The hon. member raised a concern,

and a justifiable one, but no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South to introduce and

proceed with his resolution.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Yes -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker. Would my hon. friend yield for

a minute?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. ROBERTS: May I say two things? One is to advise

members that His Honour the Administrator will attend upon the House.... That's

not the right phrase. Expects us to be here at 4:30 this afternoon when he will

come to give assent to the bills that were given yesterday.

Now I say to my friend for Grand Bank who's aquiver with

anticipation over there, there may be more. He'll have to be here at 4:30 p.m.

and hear what His Honour the Administrator says. His Honour, I understand, will

be here at 4:30 p.m. for an assent ceremony.

Secondly, I wonder if hon. members would allow - this will

take unanimous consent, and I hope my hon. friend for St. John's South will

concur - to allow us to use today for government business? If so - and I advised

hon. gentlemen opposite I would be making this request so as not to take them by

surprise - if so, we propose to ask the House to deal with two measures. The

first is the bill to reduce our pay, which is Bill 17. The other is a

supplementary supply bill for supply which would deal with the current financial

year, the year that ends at midnight this night. There's an extra $2.5 million

needed for social services matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? In any event, I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, I have spoken with my friends who sit to Your Honour's left, and they

tell me they are prepared to forgo Private Members' Day to allow the government

to use it. But I must ask if hon. members opposite would permit that.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know the amount of work

that the Member for St. John's South has put into this resolution. I know that

he's very interested in the resolution. I'm interested in hearing what he has to

say. So I do not grant leave, Mr. Speaker.

Private Members' Day

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank the Member for Kilbride.

MR. MURPHY: I do thank the Member for Kilbride, however I

also understand that it is important to do the Province's business, but now that

it is Private Members' Day I certainly am prepared to take advantage of the

opportunity to speak on what I feel is an extremely important subject, and

obviously if I did not I would not have put it on the Order Paper.

I think we see from day to day a tremendous and growing

concern about, not only the environment throughout the world, but the

environment as it pertains to our shoreline, Mr. Speaker, and how it would

pertain to, I suggest, our very fragile resource, our fishery.

Now, in 1989 there was a public review panel put in place by

the federal government to deal with the growing public concern for marine

environment resulting from bulk movement of oil and chemicals throughout

Canadian waters and throughout our fishing zones. This three member panel was

given a mandate to review and evaluate initially the measures currently in place

to ensure the safe movement of oil and chemicals by tanker and tanker barge

throughout Canadian waters, and Canada's ability to respond to marine spills of

these products and the Canadian and international legislation and conventions

which regulate the movement of oil and chemicals including the provision for

compensation for damages resulting from spills.

Now, that particular panel was put in place by the federal

government in 1989 and let me tell this hon. House what the major findings were

from this panel. The first item they dealt with was capacity. They said that the

capacity to respond effectively to a spill of any significant magnitude does not

presently exist anywhere in Canada, so in actual fact what the panel told the

people of eastern Canada, more specifically the people of this Province, that if

we incurred a major spill such as the one that took place recently in the

Shetland Islands that we would not have the ability to clean it up. Now, I do

not need to remind hon. members, and I do not need to remind people throughout

this Province, the situation related to our fishery at this time. We know that

3J+3KL, that whole area, the whole spawning area, is very, very sensitive and

very, very fragile at this time.

Let me remind hon. members that the tanker that went ashore

on the Shetland Islands was bound from Norway via Newfoundland to the Ultramar

refineries in Quebec. That tanker got into trouble in a storm just north of the

Shetland Islands and that could just as easily have been, as we know our own

environment at this time of the year, and the time that particular misfortune

took place to be extreme, and had that oil tanker gone ashore somewhere up in

the St. Anthony area and the millions and millions, and millions of tons of

crude oil that escaped from that vessel would have solidified in our cold water

and went to the bottom in what we know as the last great spawning grounds for

the Atlantic cod. That would have been devastating. Not only are we in a

precarious position right now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the over-fishing by

the foreign nations and the lack of federal management associated with the

fishing, but now we have to worry about these horrendous spills where we have

tankers that roam very close to our shores, some 360 tankers each year pass the

coast of Newfoundland, in the day and in the night, through all kinds of

weather, ice conditions and what have you.

Since I put this particular motion on the Order Paper, I

think most members are aware of the Maltese registered tanker carrying 95

million litres of crude oil that was bound for the Come By Chance refinery, and

a plate separated somewhere off the Azores, and a slick of some thirty

kilometres trailed that particular vessel. That particular vessel was on its way

again to the oil refinery in Come By Chance.

Now surely heavens I do not need to tell hon. members here,

and the Member for Burin - Placentia West, or the Member for Grand Bank, the

devastation that particular tanker, had it ruptured in the mouth of Placentia

Bay, would have cost the fisherfolk on the south coast of this Province.

Right now we are suffering from little or no income from fish

throughout the Province, and that particular tanker was seen - the spill was

seen early and diagnosed early, and of course they towed the tanker into Halifax

and removed its cargo; but even when we started the Come By Chance oil refinery,

I think the fishermen of Placentia Bay at that time expressed a very deep

concern, and rightfully so, because over the years we have seen what minor

spills have caused, and the problems they have caused, in Placentia Bay.

Now it is not only Placentia Bay that I am concerned about,

or that we all should be concerned about. It is the whole Province, because we

sit really at the entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and all hon. members

know of all the petrochemical and petroleum based products that find their way

by our shores to the industrialized centres throughout Canada.

God forbid, and I say to the hon. member for Baie Verte -

White Bay, could he possibly imagine what would happen to the lobster fishery

and the lumproe fishery - the little bit of fishery that is left in the member's

district, if an oil tanker went ashore on the Straits shore or on the french

shore somewhere, what devastation if it went down in Bay d'Espoir, down through

Sop's Arm and into that area? I say the same thing to the hon. Member for Humber

West. It would be catastrophic - devastation. It would finish our lobster

fishery for years and years and years.

This review panel on tanker safety also found that each year,

based on current levels of tanker traffic, Canada can expect over 100 small oil

spills, about 10 moderate spills, and at least one major spill. A catastrophic

spill over 10,000 tons, for which we are wholly unprepared, can be expected once

every fifteen years.

Now this is why I put this particular motion, this

resolution, on the Order Paper. It is to make our federal government aware of

the great need, as one of the G-7 countries, to bring to the table the

legislation - the world legislation - that is necessary to ensure that the

tankers that travel the high seas today are safe and secure.

I think if we look at some other information that is

available we find out that the Far East today is the greatest builder of what

are commonly known as super tankers, and these super tankers, such as the one

called the Nisiki Maru, which is a Japanese super tanker - I just want to remind

hon. members of the size and the capacity of this particular vessel. It is the

largest oil tanker currently in service. It was launched in 1971, and the

mammoth ship is 347 metres, or 1,139 feet long, 179 feet wide, and as high as a

twenty storey building. This particular vessel can carry 3 million barrels of

crude oil at a speed of fifteen knots.

Some of my colleagues opposite, and especially the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, can imagine what would happen if we looked down

Placentia Bay, the right-hand side of Placentia Bay, if a tanker of that size

ever ruptured down on the rocks where our American friends went ashore during

the war. If a tanker of that size got in and the tide was going into Placentia

Bay, I would suggest to the hon. member that what is left of the inshore fishery

in his district would be gone - if not forever, longer than the member will be

around.

So it is extremely important that we ask our federal friends

to pay attention to what's going on in the world, Mr. Speaker, as we get what

are known as tankers and/or ships of convenience. Ships with Liberian

registration, where the rules are no rules. Where the crew is intermingled. We

saw with the ship that went ashore in the Shetland Islands that the lack of

communication between the crew members was probably one of the most obvious

reasons that the tanker got in such serious trouble.

Now they talk about double-lined hulls, vertical storage, not

filling these tankers so that the external pressure is greater than the internal

pressure to contain the oil. But none of this type of legislation exists in the

world today. I think when you consider - and the Member for Grand Bank says it

often and says it well, as do hon. members on both sides - that without the

fishery this Province has little or no chance of survival. So we must pay

attention right now to anything that would disturb the recovery of our

groundfish. We have to.

I say to Your Honour, who represents a very formidable

fishing district in Bay de Verde - if the inshore fishery and/or the lobster

fishery, or the lump roe fishery that's going to take place very shortly, if

that was devastated by an oil spill - and it wouldn't take much - he can well

imagine what an impact it would have on the little bit of income that's left

outside of the moratorium dollars that are passed on to fishermen.

This panel also revealed that we in Canada do not have the

capability of cleaning up a major oil spill. The risk of spills is highest in

eastern Canada, particularly in Newfoundland. The highest risk for oil tanker

spillage exists in this Province. Not only does it exist in this Province, it

exists in Placentia Bay. I'm glad the Member for Placentia just returned.

Because I know it is of equal concern to the hon. minister as it is to the

Member for Burin - Placentia West.

This was a national panel and this is their finding. It is

frightening when you think about the consequences. We've seen over the years -

and we watched a good friend of mine, Mr. Bill Ryan, with the Canadian Coast

Guard - and some of the small spills, some of the people who just blow ballasts,

what it has done to our bird life. We've seen hundreds and thousands of birds

come ashore in Placentia Bay. We hear wildlife officers every day talk about the

deterioration of our turrs, murres and puffin population. Any of these birds

that contact this type of oil are doomed to disaster. So it's not only our

fishery. Because when heavy crude hits cold water it congeals and goes to the

bottom. If it goes to the bottom it impacts and affects the very spawning

grounds that we're all hoping will grow and nurture.

So it is extremely important that we send a message from this

House to the federal government to go to the G-7 conference and raise the

concerns of not only Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders, but any of our marine

provinces because a major oil spill would be disastrous for us at any time but

even more disastrous for us at this time.

You know, Mr. Speaker, outside of the fact that these tankers

are just huge monstrosities of buildings that are built on engineering and

design structures, are primarily, primarily designed to carry large amounts of

crude oil throughout the world and they are not built with safety in mind. They

are not built with safety in mind because if they were built with safety in

mind, they would not have to fly the flags of these countries of convenience.

They would not mind flying the Canadian flag, but they know that by Canadian

standards, they could not transport petroleum products such as crude and

finished products throughout the world, they would not be allowed and I think,

Mr. Speaker, it behooves us all to pay attention at this time, at any time, when

we see what is happening to the environment throughout the world, associated

with these spills.

When we see what is going on we must send a message from this

Legislature to the federal government to ensure that Canada, this great,

peacekeeping, world renowned nation, seen all over the world as being a

stabilizer, to pass on to the rest of the world how important it is for us to

make sure that the type of ships that are carrying this crude oil are sound,

safe and solid.

The panel also found that Canada's tanker fleet is old and in

need of replacement. The estimated life span of a tanker is twenty years, Mr.

Speaker, but Canadian tankers are, on an average, older than that, much older,

five or six years older than that and we see the deterioration of it. Overall,

foreign tankers pose a greater threat to our shores the panel found, than

domestic tankers. Almost one-quarter of foreign tankers inspected by the

Canadian Coast Guard, in the Atlantic region over an eighteen-month period,

ending December 31, '89, were found to be defective. So I think what we are

seeing here, Mr. Speaker, day in and day out - we know of that horrendous spill

on the Alaska coastline, the Exxon Valdez, I think the name of that tanker was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Valdez, thank you, I thank the hon. member.

That particular spill cost, now, listen, $6 billion to clean up, $6 billion just

to clean up the crude oil off the Alaskan Coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: $6 billion dollars. Not only did it cost $6

billion to clean it up but it also wreaked havoc on wildlife, fisheries, the

salmon stocks in Alaska suffered immensely, they are still not back because of

that spill, Mr. Speaker, and Exxon, rightfully so, are paying compensation to

the fishermen on the Alaskan Coast. So, Mr. Speaker, although we have other

pressing matters on our minds and although we have other things that are

important, let us all remember that a similar catastrophe for this Province, an

island Province, right at the gateway to the Gulf, 300-plus tankers going by our

shores every single day, let one of those super tankers come ashore on our

ground and we will all, we will all, pay a horrendous price because of that

particular situation. So we have to send the message to our friends in Ottawa,

loud and clear, that we, the members of this Legislature, are asking them to go

to the G-7 Conference on tanker safety and take a lead position to ensure that

the fleets that are sailing the seas right now, have a standard and a standard

only acceptable by Canadian standards.

I give way now, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from the

Opposition side because I know he wants to stand up and support this wonderful

motion.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few basic words

as it relates to the petition presented by the Member for St. John's South. I do

not think we can doubt the need to have put in place some sort of a structural

system whereby the appropriate inspections of such vessels take place. I think

that is extremely important, not just for Placentia Bay but indeed for the

entire coast of our Province, and certainly the Eastern Seaboard, because the

vessels will be travelling in that direction. I believe that the inspections

should be taking place. Not only that, I believe that most of these carriers

should all be double-hulled and that is not necessarily what is happening. In

terms of the responsibilities of the federal government, I think that that

should certainly go in place.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we cannot lose sight of the

fact that the present Minister of Environment and Lands in this Province has not

had the courage to deal with other materials that will be brought to this

Province by sea. The present Minister of Environment and Lands has stood by, and

if anything, encouraged the transportation of garbage, chemical and otherwise,

to this Province. That is where we have a problem, Mr. Speaker. So, it is not

just necessarily tankers, I say to the Member for St. John's South, although

that is very important and has to be dealt with. But for this Minister of

Environment and Lands and the Member for Placentia, I wish he were here, the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who are encouraging the

importation of American garbage into this Province by vessel, Mr. Speaker, to be

brought here, does nothing to enhance the type of argument that the Member for

St. John's South is putting forth today.

I do not know for the life of me, how this government can go

out with two ministers, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is here

but the Minister of Environment and Lands - how can that minister, that is the

question that has to be answered, encourage the importation of American garbage,

chemical and otherwise, because we do not know what is going to be wrapped up in

the car loads that are put on vessels and brought in here? That is another area

which we have to get into, not just the oil tankers, we have to get into both of

them.

As the Member for St. John's South pointed out, very astutely

I must admit, he did a good job, is that the whole southwest coast for example,

the whole area, and it would go beyond that, if there is an oil spill in

Placentia Bay it may not just come into Placentia Bay, it may not just be on the

western side of Placentia Bay or anywhere else, it depends on the wind, it

depends on what happens, it depends on the traffic, it could be all over the

place. Mr. Speaker, if you were to put in place the tragedy that could take

place in this Province and indeed in Atlantic Canada, the whole Eastern

Seaboard, if something were to happen in terms of an oil spill in this Province,

it would have a very negative effect. Our fishery would be wiped out, no

questions asked.

I would also say to the member, Mr. Speaker, that it is not

only oil tankers and it is not only the most recent years that we have had a

problem with oil spillage off our coast. How many vessels over the years have

gone out and emptied their ballast tanks? How many I wonder? Some of them they

have been able to track down. Some of them they have been able to track down,

others they have not.

I remember back some years ago when I got old enough to carry

a gun and to do a little bit of bird hunting out to Mistaken Point, well we did

not go out that far at times, we could go out in the spring of the year but

certainly out in the (Inaudible) of Trepassey and these places. There would be

days and days and days that you would see nothing but oily birds, ducks in

particular, and that was long before there was a refinery in Come By Chance. As

the member pointed out the stakes are now greater because there is more traffic,

a lot more oil tankers are entering our bays and harbours, so I believe that as

responsible legislators we have to encourage everyone to put in place a system

whereby the necessary inspections are completed. I say to the Member for St.

John's South that there are a lot of other issues that are very important.

DR. KITCHEN: Like what?

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Minister of Health, like the way

you are trying to close down hospitals in this Province, the slaughter you are

putting on hospital boards in this Province, the slaughter you are putting on

health care needs in this Province I say to the Minister of Health. That is

another issue. If the Minister of Health keeps going in the direction he is

going with this government it will not only be the spills from oil tankers we

will have to worry about. When I turned on the radio today I listened to

constituents and medical doctors down in my district, two from my district and

one from Grand Bank, as well as the president of the joint councils and the

Minister of Health, by the way, all confirming the greatest fear of the people,

and that is the closedown of the obstetric units. And I was told today that the

ICU may be in trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is an ice cube.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not an ice cube, I say

to the Minister of Health in his fun and jestering.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are in trouble everywhere, the ICUs.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the ICUs are in trouble everywhere. While

we have to deal with health issues and while we have to deal with the issues

that put bread and butter on the table to ensure the protection of our

fishermen, to ensure the protection of the environment, we cannot do that at the

same time you have a Minister of Environment and Lands, a Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, and a Premier of a Province who is encouraging garbage

to be brought in by vessel from the United States. We cannot have it, it cannot

be done both ways. I do not know if the Member for St. John's South would even

consider amending his motion to include the elimination or the cancellation of

any thought of bringing additional garbage and chemicals into this Province from

the United States.

MR. MURPHY: That is for another day I say to the hon.

member.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, well, if he wants to do it another day

that is fine with me, but we have to put a stop to the Premier of this Province,

and in particular the Minister of Environment and Lands, the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and the Minister of Health who I understand -

I do not know if it is true or not, but I have been told that the Minister of

Health is a strong proponent of supporting the importation of American garbage

into this Province. Now, I do not know if it is true and I want to make that

clear from the beginning, I do not know if it is true, but it has been

suggested. What is the government's position?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there you go. Well, it would be

alright for someone to speak for Environment because the minister does not do a

very good job of it. Now, you have the Minister of Health supporting the

position of the Minister of Environment and that is basically the importation of

American garbage. Then you have the Minister of Finance, another prime example,

when he was a socialist he was against everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was never a socialist.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he was. He ran five or six times as a

socialist. When he was a socialist he was against everything and now that he has

become a Conservative he does not know where he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: What we need are Liberals like you.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. I would suspect that I am more

of a Liberal than the Minister of Finance. I am far more of a Liberal than the

Minister of Finance. I can tell the Minister of Health that I know what a

flicked Tory is. It is someone who gets flicked out of the party and has nowhere

to end up only over in the benches of the Liberal party.

MR. ROBERTS: It's pretty hard to get thrown out of the

Tory party.

MR. TOBIN: Yes it is, I agree. I agree it's pretty hard

to get kicked out of this party. But I can tell the Minister of Justice that

directly behind him is one person - and probably the only person -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice

pointed out, he too was a member of the Conservative Party at one time.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: He too was a member of the - yes, you probably

did. But the Minister of Health did not leave on his own accord.

MR. ROBERTS: My eyes were opened. I saw the light.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Health got the flick. He said

- what you call a picked Tory, well that's a flicked Tory, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. ROBERTS: Carried.

MR. TOBIN: No, it's not carried. He did get the flick,

I'd say to the minister of - and I'm not going to sit down and -

MR. ROBERTS: Relevance, relevance.

MR. TOBIN: If you're dealing with relevance I guess the

Minister of Justice would be back on Duckworth Street. In any case -

MR. ROBERTS: No, that's competence.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, well. Who would be so modest as to suggest

that, only the Minister of Justice? Who would be so modest to suggest that,

other than the Minister of Justice?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Water Street lawyer. Located

lower than a Duckworth Street lawyer.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope your next move is on the

edge of the waterfront.

MR. ROBERTS: I was in there, I chaired it.

MR. TOBIN: Is that right?

MR. MATTHEWS: The waterfront?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) lawyer. Can the hon. gentleman

say that? Has he ever been down to the Waterford?

MR. TOBIN: I never said Waterford. I said "waterfront."

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, waterfront!

MR. TOBIN: I said: I hope your next move is to the edge

of the waterfront.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that's right, so you can practice law

looking at the water and the sea, what made Newfoundlanders basically. So you

can look out at the waters where you'll probably see the American garbage

passing by in container ships that the Minister of Environment and Lands is

encouraging to come to this Province.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's possible, I say to the Minister of

Justice, anything is possible. There's no doubt about that. Anything is possible

in life. Whoever thought when you left politics that you would be back? The

Minister of Justice certainly didn't. He told enough people that he didn't think

he'd ever be back in the Legislature again. So I say to the Minister of Justice,

anything is possible.

MR. ROBERTS: Bob Aylward may run again.

MR. TOBIN: Sure he may. He said that. The Member for St.

John's North may run again. He ran often enough to get in here, I say to the

Member for St. John's North. He ran often enough to try and get in here. So now

he may get the itch again. As did your other professor friend run often enough

to try to get in here. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Health ran for the

leadership of the Conservative Party. That tells you how backward the

Conservative Party was in this Province thirty-five or forty years ago when we

would even allow his name on the ballot paper, I say to the Minister of Health.

When we would even allow him to sit in the same room. Eventually some people

came along and the Minister of Health was no longer a member of the Conservative

Party.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened? The next election in

this Province when he got the flick, the Conservatives formed a government.

That's the type of affect that can have on forming a government.

MR. MATTHEWS: Now what about the tankers?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no, the point that I'm making is

that the Ministers of Health, Justice, and Environment and Lands are encouraging

the importation of America garbage into this Province by container ship. I'm

saying that that is just as bad as the oil tankers off our coast. We've got to

ensure that that does not happen, that it is not permitted to happen.

The Member for St. John's South today, no doubt his

presentation was a good presentation on the terrible tragedy that could take

place off our shores and in our bays and harbours if - if, Mr. Speaker, - there

was ever a major oil spill off the shores of this Province, or anywhere in the

Eastern Seaboard. I believe there is something we must do to prevent it. I

believe there are measures that should be taken, such as ensuring that all

vessels are double-hulled, I say to my friends in this Legislature, and if the

federal government has responsibility for that, we should encourage them, as

provincial legislators, to ensure that happens, but it is not enough. It is not

enough for vessels of flags of convenience to do what they like without adequate

inspection to ensure that we protect the environment and the lands and the

shores of this Province.

We have a great Province. Placentia Bay is one of the best

bays that could ever be. Anywhere in the world they cannot beat the shores and

the harbours and the coves and the lakes of Placentia Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: As a matter of fact, there are many here who

came from Placentia Bay, and there are those of us who are descendants of people

in Placentia Bay. Then there are people like myself -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Some good people (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They are all good people. I disagree with the

Member for Bellevue. There are not some good people in Placentia Bay. They are

all good people in Placentia Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, they are all good people in Placentia Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well I can say to the member that I know where

my roots came from, down on the lower end of Merasheen Island in a place called

Indian Harbour, and the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is very familiar with

Indian Harbour. He has been in there many times. That is where my grandfather

came from, where my father was born, and where I am proud to have visited; but

unlike the Member for Bellevue, I did not leave Placentia Bay. I went back, and

for the past twenty-one years have lived in Placentia Bay. That is the

difference. I am just about twenty-one years there now, and I can say to the

Member for Bellevue, when I went to Marystown some twenty-one years ago I could

not even dream that my life would be as fulfilling as becoming part of the great

Town of Marystown, the great district of Burin - Placentia West, and the most

historic bay in the country, good old Placentia Bay.

As I said, we, as legislators, should do everything possible

to protect Placentia Bay and other bays and shores in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Farrell.

MR. TOBIN: Well it could be, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals in

the district will decide on whether it be Mr. Farrell or whether it be Miss

Parsons Popovitch Penney.

The Liberals of that district will decide who it will be, and

then the constituents of Burin - Placentia West will decide whether it be one of

them, me, or if the NDP have a candidate, and I would certainly be prepared, as

all hon. members must be, to accept, in a very modest way, the decision of the

voters.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, probably it is not, but I

can say to the Minister of Justice that there is one word we can associate well

with him, and that is 'arrogance', I say to the Minister of Justice - the

heights of arrogance.

I have always been and always will remain a very humble

individual, I say to the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, indeed I have a lot to be humble about. I

came from very humble beginnings and I intend to stay that way, I say to the

Minister of Justice, and everything I got in life I worked for and nobody gave

it to me. I also say that to the Minister of Justice.

When I went to University I went through student loans and

everything else. I had no one to give me anything. Like most other people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I know all about it. As a matter of fact, some

of my -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) student loans.

MR. TOBIN: No, the Member for Carbonear would not know

anything about it. As a matter of fact, while I hung around with a lot of the

boys from Carbonear most of them would have nothing to do with you, to be

honest. Most of them had nothing to do with you, to be perfectly honest with

you, and there was good reason why they would have nothing to do with you. Some

of them wanted to keep their reputations intact. Yes, I can say to the Member

for Carbonear that at one time in my life I did make a mistake. I was campaign

manager for Rod Moores when he ran for president of the CSU. I don't mind

admitting that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, he did make a good -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - presentation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: - very worthwhile presentation.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That thunderous

applause makes me feel like its time to start shouting from the rooftops. To get

down to the issue at hand, which is the private member's resolution so ably

presented by the hon. Member for St. John's South. The hon. member is as we know

a very eloquent speaker. He is one who speaks extremely forcefully for the

people of his district. He is an hon. member who takes a back seat to nobody in

the dealing with matters for the people of the different areas of St. John's

South. This is the kind of issue that will affect all people of the Province and

will affect the people of St. John's South in a manner which is no different

from the way it would affect any other.

The resolution is a very timely one. With the environmental

issues that face us all these days, the environmental situation has become a

situation of awareness now, while if we look to the past years, no one thought

of the environment. It was a commodity that seemed like it - if you looked at it

as a commodity. No one really worried about what the pollutants were doing to

the air. No one was really concerned about the oil spills. You'd hear about an

occasional oil spill and it was an isolated incident. There was not much thought

about what it did, other than the changes that it might make to the local

eco-systems with the birds and the fish in a given area being affected. It

wasn't thought of that problem and how that would then work its way into the

food chain.

Eventually with the pollutants that are produced through an

oil spill, or through the general pollution that happens with the industrial

society that we now live in, gradually changing to an information society - but

even an information society has the production of products which in turn, as a

by-product and a waste product, we end up with chemicals and agents that are

exposed to the atmosphere. That cause problems now as we see with the ozone

layer. The pollutants, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and many

other pollutants, heavy metals and this sort of thing, that have been brought to

the awareness of the public in past years, in the most recent years.

Maybe most brought forward, I suppose, in the past five

years. We've seen an awareness growing to a point where students in school

systems are coming forward with environmental initiatives. It's a hot property

to be an environmentally sound company. It's the kind of thing that we, as hon.

members here on the back benches of the government side, and on the Opposition

side as well, I might add, can really do something to establish some form of

priority in what this government could be putting forward as proposals to the

federal government. As well, in our own environmental legislation, a new piece

of which has been passed just this session, since we opened the House in the

past month or so.

Now to look at an oil spill and what an oil spill would do. I

had the unfortunate situation about a year and a half ago to have an oil spill

in the Port aux Basques area. There was an oil tanker which was travelling past

the southwest corner of the island which experienced a problem with the pack ice

which is around about this time of year. With that problem it had a hole carved

into the bow of the vessel which then started to release some of the oil into

the water.

The cleanup at that time was aided by the natural action of

the ice that was there, dissipating it to a point, so that it was not

concentrated as much. Through the action of the ice, high waves and the storm

that was on at the time, the high waves and that, it did not have as bad an

affect, as it might have had but that was the exception rather than the rule,

Mr. Speaker. It was the kind of thing when - when this incident came about there

was a company which was hired by the insurance company for the vessel concerned,

which came to the aid of this company and hired local people to assist in the

cleanup. Now, this was the kind of activity that took place and there was very

little idea of how to go about it. It was a remote corner of the Province with

respect to any oil spill equipment and that. If this had happened at a different

time of year, a similar type of spill, I suppose, you would not have a problem

with ice cutting a hole in the other vessel but you would certainly have a

situation where the oil spill might be very, very detrimental to the local

fishing grounds and also to wildlife that are around the shore in the nearby

areas.

So, at that time when the oil spill happened with no team

being nearby, there was a period of time prior to which there was no activity at

all in the cleanup. I spoke with members of the Coast Guard at the time, who

went over the area with a Coast Guard helicopter and advised me of the length of

the spill and just what the situation was. They were very concerned that it was

much worse than it looked because of course there is no way of knowing until

such time as you get the vessel to a point where you can examine it and see just

how much may have leaked out. Of course, there are no monitors and that on these

vessels to determine as to exactly how much oil and/or petroleum products are

still in existence in the vessel.

The other thing that I wanted to mention with regard to this,

is the situation then, even though it dissipated, there is still some residue

left on the rocks in some places and it is a nagging issue for the people of the

area that this oil spill has caused this kind of problem. Now it is just luck

and I might add, that if there was ever luck I suppose associated with it, it is

just one that as far as we know it did not affect the fishing grounds. Fishing

there has been pretty good since.

Also, the situation with regards to an oil spill response is

something that the Department of Environment, as we understand, is in fact

working on. I have a document here, Mr. Speaker, which is concerning an oil burn

experiment which is being undertaken by the Department of Environment Canada,

federal department, they are a sponsor. As well, we have other sponsors, the US

Mineral's Management Service is involved, the Canadian Coast Guard, the American

Petroleum Institute, the US Coast Guard, the US Marine Spill Response

Corporation and the US EPA, along with the industry the Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers and there are another twenty industries involved. This is

the kind of activity that we are encouraging in this resolution today.

Now, this experiment is called an SITU Oil Burn Experiment.

There is a diagram of how they plan to undertake it, doing a burn of the oil in

the water just to see if that is an effective method of dealing with oil spills

on the water. As well, Mr. Speaker, they plan to activate some remote control

sampling vessels at different levels in the atmosphere in order to determine the

amount of pollutants that will be released from this burn, in comparison to the

situation if the oil were just allowed to dissipate, and there were just the

normal fumes and the dissipation, to a point where the concentration of oil in

the ocean eco-system is very small and possibly much less damaging to the

environment.

So this is the kind of initiative that it is good to see

people working on with all of these different groups and government departments

in both Canada and the U.S., and other agencies that have concerns in this area.

Let's look at the resolution as put on the Order Paper by the

hon. member. I note he says: "...there is a great possibility that a major oil

spill will take place off our coast unless changes are made with regard to oil

tanker safety." That is very true, Mr. Speaker. I know that the large marine

service industries that are producing oil tankers now are using the

double-hulled method of construction, which is a much more safe manner of

transporting oil in this kind of vessel. Of course, as my hon. colleague did

mention, a lot of our vessels are old and are badly in need of replacement. With

the economy the way it has been lately we just hope that over the next five to

ten years there will be more replacements of existing vessels or more retrofits

to improve the safety of the vessels already in use.

To get on to the next 'whereas', the hon. member states that:

"WHEREAS an oil spill would have devastating effects on the marine environment

and the economy of this Province," I certainly feel that this is possibly the

case. We can't say in all instances, but you have to plan for the worst case

scenario. When you are looking at issues of safety, either from an environmental

standpoint or from a standpoint of the safety of life and property, as far as

the people and their livelihoods are concerned, in the bounty of the sea, and

how that would have effect on the fish and crustaceans, as well as the

possibility of damaging the spawning grounds off the Southwest Coast - I would

look at, in my own district, an area there where the fish normally spawned. So

these are things we have to take into account, not only in the drafting of this

resolution, but also in our own concerns as hon. members.

Also, I would like to comment on the final 'whereas' of the

resolution, where it notes that we call on this House of Assembly to, itself,

call "...on the Federal Government to take the immediate action to increase

inspections of foreign ships...." This is something that would certainly hold

true to the hearts of the members of the Seafarers International Union, as well

as other unions of people here in the Province who go to sea from time to time

for various companies.

I know,in my own family,we have people who are members of the

Seafarers International Union who are regularly calling for improvements in the

safety standards and inspections of foreign vessels. We only recently have to

look at the sinking of a gypsum transport vessel thatt down, and some very

horrific photographs of that vessel with an infrared camera as it was being

swamped by waves. One has to wonder if, in fact, that kind of marine disaster

that occurred could have been prevented with a more vigorous inspection regime

by the Canadian Coast Guard, by Transport Canada, and other agencies that may,

in fact, establish rules and regulations for the transportation of dangerous and

other commodities in our waters.

So, if we look at what happened in a case like that, and the

cost of this kind of initiative - the costs of this kind of initiative are first

and foremost the cost of the said inspection and the setting up of the program

to inspect these vessels. There is a concern about the cost of this kind of

setup. I suppose you could look at it as preventive, like preventive maintenance

on your own vehicle, trying to prevent people's disease through preventive

health care measures and also, in a case like this, the preventive aspects of

industry in making sure that vessels are inspected, that people are well trained

in the facets of safety and the cost then becomes a preventive one.

If we look at the money that was spent - it is probably very

difficult for the families of those people involved in the most recent marine

disaster, but just to look at the amount of money that was spent on the rescue

efforts that were made, to try to rescue the people of that one gypsum vessel,

and compare that to the amount of money that would be needed to set up a program

for inspection, I would think that the efforts of Search and Rescue could

certainly be made a lot lower, and the cost of said program a lot lower, if, in

fact, we put the money into a preventive program of inspection. So we have to

look at inspection from a standpoint of just the preventive cost and not the

idea of hoping that we have vessels that are safer in our waters if there is a

cost in not doing it.

It is like the issue - I was in the life insurance business

before I came here to the House of Assembly, and if you look at the cost of not

buying insurance, it is the same type of thing, you pay now or you pay later. We

as taxpayers, will pay now through supporting a preventative safety program or

we will all pay later by virtue of having an incident which would require the

safety or the necessity of Search and Rescue and the cost associated with that,

so we pay anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you franois?

MR. RAMSAY: No, the hands are going, though. Yes, I do

have some French background.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to clue up, in my last bit of time here

"... that this House of Assembly calls on the Federal Government to take the

immediate action to increase inspections of foreign ships, improve emergency

preparedness, and to become more aggressive both in areas under our jurisdiction

and at the international level to prevent oil spills."

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, this resolution is one which is

very timely; it is one which we always have to look at with the number of

vessels that have spilled oil throughout the world over the last ten to twenty

years. I noticed someone mentioned the Exxon Valdez, a situation which wreaked

havoc in Alaska; other incidents such as the one I mentioned off our own coast,

and many others throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this kind of resolution is certainly

something that we, as hon. members on both sides of the House, should support,

and we should probably take some initiatives, as a Province, to establish an oil

spill training area. I know there are some that they have been working on

throughout the Province. And these are the kinds of things that we should

undertake in order to make Newfoundland a leader, not only in the offshore oil

sector of our country and probably even the continent of North America, if you

exclude the Gulf of Mexico area, but also in looking at what we can do to pave

the way for better understanding and, through this kind of experiment that would

be going on some time this summer, this is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that

I think we should participate in more fully, and consider also that our many,

many miles of coastline are very worth protecting and we certainly must keep our

coastline in a pristine environment to attract people from all walks of life,

all corners of the globe and also, in order to make sure that our people here in

this Province are able to avail of a good living from the sea, and to not be

fearful of the consequence of damage to our environment, as it has been in the

past.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this

motion.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you for the applause. I appreciate

that very much.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on this now.

DR. KITCHEN: The fewer the better.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, the fewer the better, I agree with

that. I agree with the Member for St. John's Centre, for one minute - the fewer

the better.

I was responsible, I would say - ashamed to say it right now

- I was responsible for having this debate started here today. I did not give

leave to the Government House Leader to take away the only day the Member for

St. John's South had to present his resolution. I figured he did a lot of work

on this. He certainly must have done his homework on it. He is supposed to be a

safety expert. That was his training before he got in here, but if you talk to

people at Fishery Products, it seems he caused more accidents than he prevented.

But, Mr. Speaker, he was a safety person.

It is a serious issue, there is no doubt about that. Tanker

safety and oil spills is a serious issue in our Province because the Island part

of our Province is surrounded by water and Labrador is almost surrounded by

water. I expected, by not giving leave to pass up the day, that the Member for

St. John's South would stand in his place in this House and inform me, a person

who is not as informed as I might be, on this type of safety. I am not as

informed as I would like to be on the need for this type of safety. I expected

the Member for St. John's South to get to his feet and inform me, inform members

of this House of Assembly, give me a reason to vote for this legislation, give

me some reason to support him and be delighted that I stopped the Government

House Leader from taking away his day, so I could stand in my place and support

and vote for him. Mr. Speaker, he got up and spoke for twenty minutes in

generalities. He said nothing.

MR. MATTHEWS: He said nothing, as usual.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, that is not unusual, but I figured,

because we were discussing something that was supposedly within his expertise,

that he would give the rest of us here the benefit of his knowledge on this

issue, but he spoke in generalities. He offered no solutions. He wanted to blame

the Federal Government for something else, which is common practice for anyone

on that side. It might be a good issue if it were brought before the House of

Commons in Ottawa, debated and passed. Maybe you could get something done with

it then.

I don't know what the Member for St. John's South was trying

to do. I expected him to come up with some types of solutions to this problem. I

expected him to offer some light, I suppose, at the end of the tunnel, ways that

Newfoundland could help to solve the problem, that Newfoundlanders could create

jobs by attacking this problem. That would have been a good approach for him on

his resolution. I expected some of this type of thing, but I heard none of it. I

didn't hear about any jobs that were going to be created in Newfoundland.

Hopefully, Marystown Shipyard might be able to benefit from this. After we are

finished building this huge offshore platform to go out on Hibernia, maybe those

facilities could be used to solve this problem.

I expected the Member for St. John's South to be able to show

me and other members of this House of Assembly how it would benefit us to

support this legislation, where the jobs would come from in other words. We

know, environmentally, if we could stop this problem it would be important,

although he spoke mostly about tanker breakups. I don't think he did much

research because the smallest amount of research you could do, you would know

that there are more intentional oil spills than there are accidental ones, so

anything he offered couldn't help that. Ship captains who pump out their bilges

as they are going from destination to destination spill more oil in the water

than the Exxon Valdez and the one lately, over around Scotland, ever did. It is

going on continuously, a small bit here and a small bit there, killing more sea

birds as they go. It is not the big spills - you can direct an effort towards

them and try to clean them up. You could have an emergency plan in place. Each

province and each country, I imagine, have an emergency plan in place to attack

those.

We saw, in Alaska, that they spent considerable amounts of

time and money to attack that oil spill, and in the latest reports I saw, it

seems that it worked. They have done massive amounts of clean-up. There is not

permanent environmental damage in the Alaskan area because of the Exxon Valdez

spill. Nature is rebuilding itself in that area. So, Mr. Speaker, if we have a

problem with oil spills, we first have to tackle the intentional oil spills.

Somehow, we have to convince people who own and sail large tankers and any

vessel using our seas and our coastline, not to be pumping it out intentionally.

That is the big problem.

The Member for St. John's South didn't seem to know that when

he did his presentation. It would have been better for us - if I had known what

the Member for St. John's South was going to do here today in this House of

Assembly I would not have given leave. I would just as soon have carried on with

something else. If the Member for St. John's South had let this resolution go, I

could have brought in a resolution that could have dealt with Daybreak, so that

we could find out what members in this House of Assembly feel about

re-establishing Daybreak. That would have been a good resolution to discuss here

today, and it would have been good before the board of directors of Daybreak met

with the Premier, to know individually what members in this House of Assembly

felt about that program, and maybe we could get it reinstated, but we did not

get that resolution put before the House.

Another resolution that would have been very appropriate in

the House of Assembly today, by a private member on that side who had the right

to bring a resolution today, probably we could have been discussing some of the

labour issues that are - the labour strife - that is starting to build in our

Province today. Maybe individual members in this House of Assembly might like to

have had some comment on the labour strife that is starting, and it is serious.

It is going to be a very serious problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for St. John's South has a

comment, but I did not hear it.

If he does not think that the labour strife that is about to

hit our Province is going to be serious, well he is in the wrong job because it

is going to be serious. I hope that there is no strike. My personal feeling is

that I hope there is never a strike of the public service. I hope they do not go

out. I hope the teachers do not go out. I plead with this government to try to

make a deal before the hardship is inflicted upon all of these people's families

and all of the people they serve in this Province.

There was a public service strike only a few years ago and,

believe me, it did cause a lot of concern and a lot of things happened that were

never made public, that were extremely serious, especially when people from the

health sector walk out. So I hope there is no strike. I think the last thing we

need in this Province now is a strike. We need jobs, we need work, we need

people to stimulate the economy again. That would have been a good resolution to

bring before this House today.

If we wanted to talk about environmental issues in the House

today, if that was the most important thing we could do, probably we could have

brought a resolution here concerning dumps that the government plans to bring to

Long Harbour, toxic waste dumps, or whatever type of dump they want, or the one

that they want to put in Labrador. Probably a private member on that side might

have liked to bring that type of a resolution before the House today so that we

could express our feelings on that very important environmental issue.

As important, and probably more important, to our Province

than an oil spill resolution which was brought by the Member for St. John's

South, I suppose we could have, if we wished, brought before this House of

Assembly today a resolution concerning the third party grants that were

mentioned in the Budget, where all of our Boy Scouts and Girl Guides and 4-H

Clubs and service groups and volunteers in this Province are going to get $1.2

million cut from their budgets. That would have been a very serious issue that

we could have discussed here today, and a very important one.

We could have discussed another important issue to me. I do

not know how important it is to the whole Province, but the report on the

agricultural task force, or the agricultural zone in the northeast Avalon, was

released yesterday. It would have been very good to have a resolution put before

this House today to get members' feelings on that before the minister makes his

final decision. That would have been very important to this Province, to this

region.

As important as the resolution is that the Member for St.

John's South brought in, there is nothing that we are going to do about it. We

will vote in here today, and whatever we decide to do today, it will be put in

the garbage,

whereas had we talked about Daybreak, or had we talked about Long

Harbour dumps, or had we talked about the third party grants that were removed

from this year's Budget, we could have made a decision that we, in this House of

Assembly, could have affected.

We could have changed people's minds had we all got on the

one side and supported a resolution which would have made sure that Daybreak was

going to stay open in this area. If we had to, we could have ensured that the

program would be expanded into other areas of the Province when the financial

ability of the Province allowed it. That would have been a very useful

resolution.

We could also have a resolution here today about

denominational education. We have had in the last two weeks thousands and

thousands and thousands of names in petitions brought into this House of

Assembly, asking us as members to support the continuation of the denominational

education system. We get conflicting reports, not only from that side of the

House but from this side. I had my doubts about denominational education at

times. I do not hide away from that. I am not trying to say that I think it is

the best system in the world right now because it is not. Mr. Speaker, it would

have been good, I would have liked to have seen two or three members in this

House of Assembly stand up and all of us come to some type of an agreement of

what this Province should do with the denominational educational system, so that

we do not have the Premier going out with the church leaders and trying to fool

them into suggesting that he will not change it because he writes up an

agreement to consult with them before he changes it. He almost admits that he is

going to change it. There is almost an admission there, in the report that he

did, that he will consult them before - now we know his history of consultation.

We know the history of consultation, all we need to do is ask

our public service labour unions about consultation. They were told, every year

for the last three years, come in and give us some suggestions and we will see

what we can do. We have to save another $50 million, $60 million or $70 million,

come in and give us suggestions so that we can work it out and never once yet

was one of their suggestions ever accepted. Now there is something wrong with

that if only the Premier's suggestions are the right ones. There is something

wrong with that. It is pretty lopsided when our Premier is the only one who can

come up with a solution when we have people who have been involved in labour

negotiations in the Province for quite a few years. I certainly have not agreed

with him very often. I have not agreed with him over the years very often but I

do recognize that they are experts in that field. They are good negotiators and

they are tough negotiators. Eventually a deal can be made if you will negotiate

but if you just become a dictator and tell them this is what you get, like it or

lump it, then we have what we have now. We have a teachers executive who

recommended a certain package and we have the union membership, who by a large

majority, say we do not want that. That is not the solution to the problem that

we have. It is not the solution for teachers.

Mr. Speaker, we could be doing a resolution in this House of

Assembly on education. It would be good to hear the Minister of Education stand

in this House of Assembly and explain to us why he said that he wanted to be the

Minister of Education. He wanted his grandchildren to remember him as the

Minister of Education who abolished denominational education. Now it would be

good for him to stand in this House and explain to us, if we had that type of

resolution before us, if he would explain to us why he said that. Maybe he has

good reasons, maybe he will convince me to support him. I am not sure, maybe he

would, Mr. Speaker, but that is the type of resolution we should have before

this House today.

A resolution on tanker safety and oil spill safety in the

northeast Atlantic, as important as it is, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to

change i