November

29, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 71

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to pay tribute to the late Pat Griffin, former Mayor

of Corner Brook, who died on Sunday night.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member needs leave of the House.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given the hon. the Member for Humber

East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most hon. members are familiar with Mr. Griffin's

distinguished career of municipal service. His municipal service spanned four

decades. As a Curling civic leader in the early 1950s, Pat Griffin supported the

formation of the City of Corner Brook by amalgamating Curling with Corner Brook

West townsite and Corner Brook East. He was then elected to the first Corner

Brook City Council in 1955 and he was elected to several subsequent councils. He

served one term as mayor in the 1970s.

I ask that Your Honour, on behalf of all hon. members, send a

message to Mr. Griffin's wife and family, expressing our appreciation for his

distinguished service and condolences on his death. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take the time of the House of Assembly today to

congratulate the participants and organizers of the Environmental Youth Forum

held at the Freshwater Resource Centre Fluvarium over this past weekend in the

capital city.

Fifty youth from eight schools and five youth organizations

in the St. John's greater metro area expressed their concerns about issues

ranging from water pollution to solid waste management. I had the opportunity to

discuss these concerns with the participants on Sunday evening and felt

compelled to mention to this hon. House the contribution that these young people

have made and will be making.

As Minister of Environment I realize the importance of these

issues to this generation and future generations to come. We all have a special

responsibility to look for alternative practices to improve our environmental

record. I have been greatly encouraged by forums such as this and the many

environmental programs that exist at primary, elementary and secondary schools

throughout this Province. It is especially gratifying to see our youth taking

such a strong role in proposing environmental policy and I look forward to

attending more forums across the Province.

Once again, my congratulations to the Newfoundland Freshwater

Resource Center, the City of Mount Pearl Parks and Recreation Department, Youth

for a Greener Future, Junior Forest Wardens, representatives of Girl Guides, Boy

Scouts and army cadets who participated in the forum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

I would like to first thank the minister for a copy of his

Statement that he sent to me today before the House sat. Also, on behalf of the

Opposition, I would like to congratulate the participants and organizers of the

Environmental Youth Forum held this past weekend. It is very good to see our

youth concerned about environmental issues and we should always encourage our

youth to get involved and be informed on environmental issues. After all, Mr.

Speaker, our youth will probably be responsible for cleaning up the mess that

has been created in the past and hopefully, our future generations and the youth

of today will create a greener future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, raised a point of privilege, as Your Honour

recalls, related to the questions that I asked of the Premier, in the House, on

Friday.

Now, in the member's statement, after reading Hansard of

yesterday, the member said that the Cabinet paper which recommended that Trans

City Holdings get the contracts for three health care centres was quote: not a

Dave Gilbert stand-alone paper. This paper was made up in consultation with a

committee of Cabinet. He said also, and I quote: They were informed and advised

every step of the way on this issue until the final meeting when the committee

approved the paper before it was sent to Cabinet.

Now, I want to ask the Premier this question: Is it also the

Premier's understanding that this committee was set up to deal with all matters

relating to building and financing these health care centres, and that the then

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation acted on the direction of this

Cabinet committee? I am asking if it is the Premier's understanding.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: I would like to point out to the hon. member

that certainly, a Cabinet decision was made and it is a Cabinet decision and a

Cabinet responsibility, that there was a committee of Cabinet that was

responsible for this, as well as other projects, and the development of other

projects and, Mr. Speaker, certainly the committee was aware every step of the

way, so this is something that we have previously said in the House. I believe

at one point in time I even outlined the members of the committee and indicated

who they were. Mr. Speaker, yes, we stand by what we've previously said. That is

absolutely correct.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand what the

minister previously said - I asked the Premier was it his understanding. That

was the question. Anyway, we will see that the Premier is going to continue to

try to stay away from this one, I suppose, but I will try again to the Premier.

We have learned quite a bit in fact, publicly, through the

House and everything else about this Cabinet paper known as WST 64-92, that the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir referred to yesterday in the House. We know for

example that the paper went through several drafts and we know that each draft

was written to incorporate changes ordered by the minister. What I wanted to ask

the Premier is this: Was the former minister acting at the direction of this

Cabinet committee as he told us he was doing yesterday when he told his deputy

minister on September 26 1991, quote: To stress the positives of the Trans City

proposals. Was he acting on the direction of Cabinet then or on his own?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will excuse the hon. gentleman

for a slight error he made in his question. It was WST 91-91, I believe, that

the member referred to. Anyway, it is the Cabinet paper that recommended - yes,

(inaudible) -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) 64-92.

MR. BAKER: That is a different Cabinet paper so I don't

know about that one. Or that is a different paper. I haven't seen that one.

Certainly the committee was part of that process. I would

like to point out to hon. members who have not been in Cabinet before that it is

common practice for Cabinet ministers to change parts of papers in the process

of drafting them. The Cabinet papers belong to the minister and are a result of

not just blind acceptance of everything that comes through the system, but are

constantly changed and redrafted to suit the priorities that the minister puts

on the particular issue. There is nothing unusual about changing Cabinet papers

in the process of preparing them, Mr. Speaker. I do it all the time. Hon.

members opposite, while they were in Cabinet, if they did not have a hand in

drafting Cabinet papers, then I would say they were derelict in their duties.

MR. SPEAKER: Further supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would sure be anxious to see

that paper that the minister referred to, 91-91. Perhaps he could table that one

in the House. He might be kind enough to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You said something about 91-91. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, I want to get back to asking the Premier, because the question I asked

the minister was very specific. Was it at the direction of the - I didn't ask

him, I asked the Premier - Cabinet, via the Cabinet committee, to stress the

positives of the Trans City proposals? That was the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: He forgot about it.

MR. SIMMS: He forgot about it. Of course he forgot about

it. That was the question. Would he like to answer it?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, most certainly I would like

to answer. There was never any attempt by the minister or committee to stress

the positives of the Trans City proposal. There were a variety of changes made

perhaps to ensure that a proper analysis was done, but as far as I know there

was never any direction to favour any one bid over the other. There was always

the concern that a fair analysis be done.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Premier would get

involved in this and get interested, because he is trying to give the impression

that he knows nothing about this, but it is not going to work. We are going to

flush him out if it's the last thing we do. He is going to be held accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier another one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the question.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this

question, since I could not get a straight answer on the other one. Was the

former minister carrying out the instructions of this Cabinet committee, or the

Cabinet, when he ordered his deputy minister to delete all references to cost

analysis prepared by the Department of Finance which showed that the financing

cost proposed by every bidder was above the government's borrowing rate at that

time? Was he carrying out his own instructions, his own directions, or was it at

the direction of the Cabinet?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all I do not accept the

premise in the hon. member's question. The direction from Cabinet was specific

and that direction was to the committee that made the recommendation to Cabinet,

that the borrowing rate be at or below the borrowing rate for the Province,

which varied, as I have explained before, from ninety-five basis points above

the long-term Canada rate to about 135 basis points above the long-term rate of

thirty year bonds.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was the direction of Cabinet, and that

was the direction that was followed consistently.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister can try all he

wishes, he may confuse the press, he may confuse the public, but the argument he

just used is an argument that developed several months after the fact. The

question is, what happened on November 1991? We all know what happened on

November 1991, and we all know, by the way, what the directive from Cabinet was.

He need not tell us what the directive from Cabinet was because everybody in

this Province knows.

Let me ask the Premier this question, the head of the

Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet, for whom most of these ministers

sat, by the way, so to think he doesn't know what is going on, don't kid

yourselves.

Was the former minister, I ask the Premier, the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, taking instructions from his colleagues on this Cabinet

committee when he ordered the deputy minister, on October 14, 1991, to destroy

the old drafts of the Cabinet papers because people may get the wrong idea from

reading them? Can the Premier answer that question?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I can't vouch for the veracity of

the statement; however, I would like to point out to the Leader of the

Opposition that certainly in the formation of Cabinet papers, and the formation

of putting it together, eventually there results a Cabinet paper, which goes to

Cabinet, a decision is made on, and that particular paper is then kept and is

part of the record.

In the process there are many, many reams of paper that may

or may not eventually get shred. Every single department has shredders that

shred paper. You can't expect that every bit of preliminary writing and

everything else is going to be filed somewhere. There wouldn't be enough filing

cabinets in the building to hold the volume of paper, so certainly there are

documents that are shredded - most certainly - but never, ever Cabinet papers

that go to Cabinet for a decision. That never happens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a supplementary, it is interesting to note that the

minister avoids answering most of the questions that I ask. I asked if it was a

directive from the Cabinet committee or the minister to destroy these particular

papers.

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. SIMMS: No, what?

MR. BAKER: Sir.

MR. SIMMS: No, Sir?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That isn't necessary, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Maybe it was a directive from the Premier,

then.

Let me ask the Premier this question, Mr. Speaker: Was it the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir, or was it the Cabinet committee representing

Cabinet - or himself, for that matter - that changed the original specifications

to that of requiring a steel and brick structure like Trans City had proposed,

but only after tenders had been called, had been opened, and had been evaluated

by the experts, and after Health Care Developers had been chosen as the

preferred bidders? Was it the Cabinet committee, i.e., the Cabinet, or was it

the former Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We started a process, an open process, of simply going to the

public, going to the contractors in the Province, and saying, `Here is generally

what we need - there is a functional plan in place, you can look at it - here is

what we need, come to us with your proposals.' It is the message that we have

been getting time after time after time, that government is simply too

restrictive and the government process results in much too high costs to things

that are being done, so give the private sector a chance. That is the message

that is being repeated time and time again and even today, is being repeated and

was repeated in the Private-Public Partner in Conference that was held in town

recently.

So, Mr. Speaker, we started - and we did this three years ago

- we started to open the process. Mr. Speaker, we received a lot of proposals.

When the proposals were looked at and evaluated, it was a decision of Cabinet to

go with the brick-steel structure rather than the wooden structure, the tin

structure or whatever. It was a decision of Cabinet, after looking at the

proposals certainly, to then go with the brick-steel.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has now confirmed

that it was the Premier and the full Cabinet that made the decision, in fact,

after the tenders had been called, after they had been opened and after they had

been evaluated by the experts, to change the specifications - the entire

Cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier, as the leader of

that Cabinet, who made the decision not to re-tender the project even after your

own officials recommended that you do, even after an independent consultant,

Hanscombe, recommended that you do? Was it the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir,

was it the Cabinet, was it you or was it the Cabinet committee - who made the

decision not to re-tender?

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

MR. BAKER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, Hanscombe did not

recommend that. As I recall, Hanscombe indicated that this process gave

excellent results for government, that there were many, many suggestions that

could be used in the years ahead to cut costs in terms of the building of health

care facilities. This was the conclusion of Hanscombe. One other conclusion was

that the most expensive way to do it, was to use the government method of doing

it. Now, these were the conclusions from Hanscombe and that is all.

Mr. Speaker, the decision was made, not on the basis of

changing specs that were already public, it was made on the basis of proposals

we had received from a general proposal call; then, the decision was made that

the best structure, the best value for money was brick-steel. Then there was a

detailed analysis of the brick-steel proposals to see which one offered the best

value to the people of this Province, and we eventually chose one, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this one is to the Premier and I

feel confident that he will have to answer it. He is the head of the Cabinet.

Now, Mr. Speaker, either the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir

didn't give correct information in his statement here yesterday or, in fact, he

is being hung out to dry; one thing or the other is occurring in this particular

situation.

I want to ask the Premier this question: How many of the

other three members on the Cabinet committee that we are talking about, asked

for, have been offered or have been given legal advice in relation to their

involvement with these health care centre projects, either from private lawyers

or from solicitors with the Crown? Now, the Minister of Finance, with all due

respect, is not in a position to answer that question, the Premier is, Mr.

Speaker. He is on the committee, it is an absolute conflict.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason I am

answering questions on this is because I was involved on the committee from day

one and I happen to know the detailed answers. The answer to his final question,

Mr. Speaker, is that there has been no other legal support given to any of the

other people on the committee simply because it has not been requested. If a

request had come and it had been viewed that there was a reason for it, then I

guess it would have been provided, but no requests have come. Mr. Gilbert

requested it because he had some complications. We understand the reasons why he

asked for the private legal advice and, Mr. Speaker, the government was pleased

to provide it.

MR. SIMMS: A final, final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wouldn't have asked this except for what the minister has

just entered into this discussion. The Premier told me last Friday, the reason

why the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir received the private lawyer was because

of his other case that is ongoing, and the Department of Justice didn't feel it

was appropriate.

The Member for Burgeo Bay - d'Espoir told us yesterday, the

reason why he got a private lawyer is because he wasn't getting the same advice

being offered to officials of the department. Can the Premier tell us which

story is correct?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the House

yesterday was totally correct, or Friday, whenever it was. What the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir said is that he was not getting the same treatment by a

lawyer as were the officials; as far as I know, that is what he said.

Now, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir asked for an

outside lawyer, somebody outside the Department of Justice, for the reasons that

I gave yesterday. There is no change in the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want the Premier to stand in

his place here today and give us an honest response to the question, because

there is some trickery here or deception; one or the other. Either the answer is

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - because the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir

did not want to be represented -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Now, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SIMMS: - by our Department of Justice or the Crown

solicitors -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member cannot use the words `trickery' or

`deception' in reference to another member's statements in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I won't get into that

debate here now, I withdraw whatever -

MR. SPEAKER: Check page 148 of Beauchesne, if the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl has any doubts.

MR. SIMMS: I think the reference is, if you are calling

an individual, but I won't get into that - I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the Premier - the Premier told us last Friday, it

was because the Department of Justice felt it was inappropriate to give the

former minister counsel because of his other cases outside personal case. That

is what the Premier told us in the House on Friday.

Yesterday, the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir told us it

was not because of that, it was because he was not getting effective advice from

the Crown solicitors and from the Department of Justice which was being given to

the officials. Now, which story is correct, I ask the Premier one more time,

because, if the Premier says what he said on Friday is correct, then the Member

for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is being hung out to dry.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am going to read from Hansard of

yesterday where the hon. member spoke; here is what is written in Hansard - it

is time the hon. member started acting properly - `A day or so later, the

Minister of Justice phoned and offered me a lawyer from the department. By this

time, from what had happened so far, I didn't feel comfortable having a lawyer

from the Department of Justice brief me at this time and as the Premier referred

to in his statement, it was maybe because I was facing criminal charges, but I

assume that facing them doesn't mean that I am guilty.'

The answer is precisely the same as it was before, no change,

despite the effort of the hon. member opposite to try to create a different

impression.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Inconsistency after inconsistency. I have questions for the

Premier, too.

In the Province of Quebec, Premier Parizeau just required the

resignation of his Minister of Culture because she voted illegally in federal

and provincial elections.

This Premier told the House of Assembly yesterday, that he

accepts the declaration of his Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, that

his primary residence is Tors Cove, entitling the minister to about $30,000 of

public funds for commuting.

Now, if, indeed, the minister's primary residence is Tors

Cove, then the minister has been improperly registered as a resident of St.

John's East on the federal and municipal voters list. Has the Premier determined

if the minister has voted illegally?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it, by that response, the Premier is playing ostrich

and ignoring the evidence that is before the people of the Province, that his

minister, his former parliamentary assistant who worked in his office, made a

false declaration to the House of Assembly or voted illegally.

The second question, Mr. Speaker: It is now public

information, as well, that on the minister's driver's license, his address is

Arnold Loop, St. John's. Has the Premier determined if the minister gave a false

statement when he signed the declaration that the information on his driver's

license is true?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only restate to the

House that my understanding is that the hon. member lives in Tors Cove. Now, I

didn't know until all of this became a foofaraw that he even had an apartment

here. I just assumed he lived in Tors Cove and he went there every night.

Now, if he gives an address in St. John's to have his mail

sent, or says, `that is where you can send it to me,' then I don't get too

exercised about that. I could take a look at what was done by former members of

government in this House, and by comparison, the member should be wearing angel

wings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Premier: One way or the other, Premier, don't you have

an intolerable situation on your hands? If you accept the minister's declaration

that his primary residence is Tors Cove, if you don't believe that the minister

made a false statement under oath to the Speaker when he swore that his primary

residence is Tors Cove so he could get an extra $30,000, then you must deal with

the reality that the minister gave a false address for his driver's licence and

was improperly registered, federally and municipally, and very likely voted

illegally?

Now either of these is enough to require the minister's

outright dismissal from the Cabinet. No other First Minister in Canada would put

up with such outrageous behaviour. Why is the Premier continuing to embrace the

Member for St. John's South? What does he have on you, Premier, that makes you

afraid of him?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Will you show some courage and some ethics and

fire him?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Minister, will you please tell this hon. House why Mr. Sam

Alexander, a vehicle inspector in Stephenville, was suspended from his job for

two weeks?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, as minister, I made

the decision that he acted improperly as a staff member and we suspended him for

a two-week period, pending further decisions.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So much for fairness and balance. Really, what we are into is

fear and intimidation.

Mr. Alexander, according to an editorial in The Evening

Telegram , spoke out on safety, an opinion mirrored by the majority of the

people of this Province who are concerned about safety on our highways. He was

only saying what he should as a responsible citizen. He didn't tear apart the

government, but you are trying to tear apart this man.

If the minister is so concerned, as he touts himself to be

lots of times, will he do the honourable thing and reinstate Mr. Alexander

immediately?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: In answer to the last part of the question

first, no. The answer to the first part of the question, as to the statement

that the majority of the people of this Province agree with Mr. Alexander, that

is absolutely untrue. The majority of the people of this Province are in full

agreement with the cancellation of the regulation for mandatory inspections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

direct a question to the Minister of Health.

Your department had a consultant company, Agnew Peckham

Health Care Consultants, out of Toronto, complete a comprehensive report on

nursing home beds and adult care in the St. John's region. Now, this report

indicates that almost two-thirds of all beds, or 740 out of 1,184 beds, and five

out of eight long-term care facilities here in St. John's and metro area require

upgrading or outright replacement. When is the minister going to address this

urgent problem requiring the replacement of 740 beds, or almost two-thirds of

all beds?

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

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

The report that the hon. member refers to does not indicate

that there has to be a replacement of 700-odd beds as the member has alluded to.

The report simply reviews the situation that is evolving in terms of long-term

care in the Province. That is, as we move into a situation where people are

living longer, thank goodness, we are requiring more level two and level three

care beds in the system. The institutions, the long-term care facilities in this

region of the Province, in the St. John's area, are delivering health care on a

long-term basis to the people in those institutions in a very satisfactory

manner.

That is not to say that some upgrading and some changes are

not required in terms of them being able to deliver the more appropriate level

of programming to look after those residents. It is not a case of having to

replace all of those beds, but rather we are in a situation where a lot of the

homes in this area, the long-term care institutions, do need some redevelopment.

The redevelopment of these homes will be done in a timely fashion, it will be

done on a prioritized basis, and it will be done in concert with and in

consultation with the institutions, and also in the context of what budgetary

requirements, of course, will permit us to accomplish in that regard.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is utter

nonsense. Page seventy-nine of the report says systematic upgrading or even

outright replacement. It identifies every facility and the number of beds that

must be replaced in every facility. I have that here if the minister would like

a copy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact it does say, Mr. Minister, that the

worst ones are ones that are run by this government! They are the worst ones in

the report, and I will get to that later.

With an aging population it is estimated that the St. John's

area will need an additional 425 more long-term care beds in the next seven

years at an estimated cost of $35 million, in addition to the current operating

costs of those facilities. I ask the minister: In light of this information, and

in light that your department has that report over one year, has the minister

developed a seven-year plan to address this chronic problem?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If and when and

as and when long-term care beds are required to be added to the system in St.

John's because of a demonstrated need, they will be done consistent with this

government's policy to ensure that there is provision made for health care for

those who require it on a long-term basis. We will do what is necessary, we will

do what is appropriate, and we will do what is right to ensure that no senior

citizen in this Province who needs access to long-term care will be unduly

denied or have difficulty in obtaining same. The hon. member can be assured that

this government will continue to do what is right and what is proper and what is

fiscally, medically and ethically responsible for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If that is the

case, I say to the minister, why does this report state that there are 1,500

people on the waiting list to enter homes here in St. John's?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: People who are in acute care facilities

occupying beds when they are waiting to get to nursing homes, and that only

includes people who have applied for admission, not necessarily people who need

that service. I ask the minister, what is he doing to alleviate this crisis

problem on those exorbitant and a very high waiting list in this Province for

the long-term care?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate

that question from the hon. the Member for Ferryland because it gives me an

opportunity to answer it specifically in terms of something that we are doing

with respect to the alleged long, laborious waiting list that he refers to of

1,500-odd names.

One of the initiatives that this government has taken is to

bring into existence -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I gather they don't want the answer.

They just want to hear the question.

MR. SIMMS: There doesn't have to be silence in Question

Period.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In deference to what they might want,

they are going to get the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The answer is this. One of the things we

have done to address the 1,500 people is to identify actually how many people

are out there. We are now in the process, through the new community health care

boards, specifically the one in the St. John's region, putting into place what

is known as the single entry system. That system will enable us to identify

accurately the number of people who are actually waiting for admission to some

of these institutions. The hon. member knows, I am sure, and it is a fact that

is not denied but acknowledged by all of these institutions, that in some cases

we have people on three, four, five, and six waiting lists, and when the new

single entry system comes into place we will know exactly what the waiting lines

are. I have had discussions with some of the long-term institutions in the last

short while that indicate quite clearly that the waiting lists are not of the

nature and of the extent that the member alludes to.

Where there are waiting lists they are being handled on a

prioritized basis, not on a political basis, but on a basis of fairness and

balance, where there is demonstrated need, and where people will feel sure they

have the care they need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, again I rise on a point of

privilege.

Yesterday I rose in this House and said that I was rising on

a point of privilege because the Premier had answered a question raised by the

Leader of the Opposition on Friday which although technically correct was not

exactly the true reason. I would like to have the opportunity to explain why I

rose in the House yesterday on a point of privilege.

On October 16 I phoned the Premier. I will not go into the

preamble about how we got to October 16 with my appearing before the discovery

on the health care clinics, but I suppose I should. The Department of Justice

did not offer me any advice before I went there. They did not counsel me and

they did not give me any information about it. I appeared cold at that

discovery.

When I got there, and I was concerned because I found that

documents I had signed as a member of Cabinet, Cabinet papers, drafts one, which

I had signed, and I only found out yesterday evening that one I had signed, and

they did not even tell me about that one at the discovery, that that one had

gone to the Executive Council and had not got on the Cabinet agenda the day I

was there. I only found that out yesterday afternoon, so that is draft one.

I have gone through the actual Cabinet document that was sent

up under my signature on October 17 which was never completed while I was in

Cabinet, and that was released, too, but the Department of Justice in their

wisdom chose not to give me this information before I went there. Then I got

concerned because of the coverage I was getting on TV, it looked like they were

zeroing in on David Gilbert as the culprit in this one.

I phoned the Premier on Sunday afternoon of the 16th

explaining my concerns and he said we should get the Minister of Justice to

phone you. The Minister of Justice was out of town and he would not be back

until later on, so the Premier said we would have a meeting in his office the

next morning. On Monday morning that meeting was held in the Premier's office,

at which time I explained my concerns. My concern then mainly was that I did not

have counsel before I appeared at the discovery.

The Minister of Justice said that was not a problem because I

was called by the plaintiffs and hence he was not concerned with anyone that was

called by the plaintiffs because he could get any information he wanted in the

cross examination, as I understood, so I accepted the explanation that was given

me by the Minister of Justice and the Premier who was there at that time.

I then left the office and went on my way. Over the next few

days I started to find out that what I had been told in the Premier's office

must only have applied to me, it did not apply to the other officials from that

department that were called to that discovery. I found out that Miss Marshall

and Mr. Greenland had indeed been given advice and counselled by the officials

in the Department of Justice.

At that time I became concerned and I tried to phone the

Premier. The Premier was home sick, or out of the Province, but I did contact

his secretary and explained my situation and my concerns. I then received a

phone call from the Minister of Justice who told me that he would now give me

counsel from a lawyer within the Department of Justice. I said, with what has

happened, coupled with the fact that I am involved with a case outside of this I

feel there is a bias towards me in the Department of Justice, now that you did

not give me this counsel at first. It had nothing to do with a case I had

outside. If I had been treated the same as the officials in the Department of

Justice I was quite prepared to accept legal counsel from the Department of

Justice but it did not happen until afterwards.

Now, I did not mention to the Minister of Justice at the time

that the other people had been counselled. I knew they were but I did not have

it confirmed. It was only at a meeting that my lawyer and I had with Mr. Pillar,

the lawyer from the Department of Justice, on Tuesday of last week that he

indeed did confirm that he had counselled Miss Marshall and Mr. Greenland. I

asked him why. He said it was a judgement call. I say, like Winston Churchill,

some judgement, some call.

It was wrong that he did it, and this is why I stand here on

a point of privilege. It had nothing to with a case outside. If I had been

treated the same as everybody else, the other officials in that department, I

was prepared to accept the lawyer from the Department of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Treasury Board.

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

ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act," Bill No. 53.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of the members

opposite asked me some questions about Mr. David Joyce's application and the

role played by my executive assistant in Corner Brook, Eddie Joyce, and the

explanation that Mr. Eddie Joyce has given, namely, that he had general

authority from Mr. Joyce to use whatever information he needed. I indicated that

there was another person present in the room at the time. The members asked me

to name that person and I said I would have to get the permission first. The

other person whose permission I had to get to use her name is named Sheila

McCarthy.

Petitions

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition on behalf of the constituents of my district. I will read the

prayer and then I will make a few comments.

We, the undersigned residents of the District of Baie Verte -

White Bay, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency employment

program. With the economic conditions which exist we find ourselves in a

desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to show compassion

and understanding in this urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on another petition today for the simple

fact that the latest which came from the minister's department, his press

release from yesterday, I quote the last paragraph of the minister's statement:

The minister is hopeful that through further discussions with Mr. Tobin and Mr.

Axworthy, the Minister of Human Resources and Development, that both levels of

government will soon be able to make a commitment to providing employment

support in the coming months.

In the coming months. Since this statement the calls have

started again. I know that since last Wednesday when I left to go back to my

district for Thursday and Friday that I received a number of calls. I will tell

you in this House today, that they were calls not from just the District of Baie

Verte - White Bay. This is an issue that is covering this whole Province and it

is an emergency, I say to the minister. I wonder when he, his department and the

government are going to wake up to realize that it is a silent cry, it is not an

organized - like the Power Of the People, or some other group. It is the people

who are spotted all over this Province who are in a desperate state.

I say that in all honesty here today because I know there are

members on the opposite side of this House who have gotten the calls, the same

calls I have. They are not fabricated stories or exaggerated stories, they are

the real thing. It really appals me that this minster makes a press statement

that said in the coming months. Do you realize how far away that seems to people

in this Province who are in this situation? In all sincerity, I say to this

minister here today that that does not give any comfort to the people who are

living this situation today. It really sickens me to hear a response coming from

our provincial minister that says in the coming months he is going to continue

to talk to the federal government. It is sickening.

Because the answer has to come now, it has to come within

days and weeks. The people who I've talked to, and I've talked to - I had calls

last Thursday from the Member for Harbour Grace's constituents. His constituents

have called me to say: I can't wait two weeks, I can't wait three weeks. The

situation is right now and it is about time that this government acted on it and

not say: We are going to travel back and forth on Air Canada to Ottawa and argue

with the federal government for another couple of months. That is not good

enough. The point has to be made that I am not just talking about the people who

are going to come off TAGS on December 31. There is a combination here. The

other side of the coin is that there are a lot of people, the loggers, the

miners, the construction workers -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) MHA, boy.

MR. SHELLEY: You ask the people in the district. The

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I will stand in my place any

day, toe to toe with him, and say I have represented the people in my district;

I can tell him that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Because the situation is real, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got calls from your district.

MR. SHELLEY: I got calls from all over this Province, not

just my district, saying that it is about time some of our own members stood up

and spoke for the people in their own district.

Mr. Speaker, the latest story I will relate - of course, I

can't use names - these are people who try to work. We know there are abuses in

the system. These are people who try to get work, I am talking about. I had one

person in my district who went to Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia for eight

months, going from job to job. He finally came back because he had three

children home.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I say I am serious, Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. It is nothing to laugh at. The man who is sitting

home with ten insurable weeks and two weeks short is not laughing at it; I will

tell you that. He had two weeks short after being eight months in Prince Edward

Island and Nova Scotia, beating around to try to find a job. Then he comes back

here and he needs two weeks insurable work, and he knows - and he said it to me,

and I say it to the government and minister again - I know it is not the

long-term solution. I don't want it to be the solution. It is not the answer to

the long-term problem. It is an answer for right now this week, next week.

I had another twenty to thirty calls again this morning from

people in my district and outside my district again. I know that hon. members

are getting the same calls, so let's not overshadow it with all the other issues

that are up, and the corruption and scandals and everything else that is going

on here. While all that is going on it is overshadowing a very important issue

in this Province, and that is that people don't have the insurable weeks to feed

their families with a bit of dignity. The people have usually gone around to get

work.

Mr. Speaker, when I read this statement from this minister

here today, it doesn't console or comfort anybody in this Province who is faced

with this situation. They are not an organized group who can come in and protest

on the steps.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SHELLEY: I would like to say that the minister has to

act immediately, and not wait for coming months as he announced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand where the member is coming from, and I think

he voices the sentiments of people in his district. The reason I say that is

because I hear from the same people in his district and all other districts, so

I believe what the hon. member is saying to be correct; however, let me

straighten something out for the hon. member so he knows, and all other hon.

members - and I won't speak to it any more until I have finished my

negotiations, if you want to use that word, or my discussions with the

appropriate federal ministers before the end of this week, and hopefully I can

tell the hon. member, and all members of the House, and all the people of this

Province, that we have a situation that we can address, or we have a situation

that we can't address.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I didn't say that, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition. I said, as soon as possible.

MR. SIMMS: When? When do you expect it?

MR. MURPHY: Good question. Within a couple of weeks, I

would say to the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Perhaps the hon. Member for Bonavista South

doesn't listen too often. I told him last week, on three occasions, that this

government was not going to be involved in an emergency response program on a

stand-alone basis. I don't need to say that again, do I?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. Member for Baie Verte that

as soon as I finish doing what I can, and involving the federal people, we will

make an announcement.

I understand his circumstance. I don't need to be preached to

by anybody opposite. I understand it. I have been listening to it now,

constantly. I have been listening to it over the weekend at my home in Tors

Cove. I had twenty-one calls, to be honest with you, at my home in Tors Cove -

twenty-one calls - that is what I had.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. Member for St. John's East

Extern, it's in the book if he can read it, so give me a call. No trouble; Tom

Murphy, Tors Cove. As a matter of fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: Can even call collect.

MR. MURPHY: That is right. Call me collect, I say to the

hon. Member for St. John's East Extern. Twenty-one calls I had from all over the

Island this weekend, and I understand the quandary and the sincerity in which

people speak to the issue but I ask on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now listen to the full-time member - the

full-time Member for St. John's East got to get his mouth into it but what the

Member for St. John's East should learn is that his two predecessors, his

honour, who is now on the bench and the ex-mayor of the city took a

proportionate share of what they were entitled to but this hon. member takes it

all. Still and all he works a law firm downtown. It is time for the hon. member

to stay quiet and do not pass judgement on other people and make snide remarks.

We will address -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I understand that and I say to the hon.

Member for Baie Verte -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - that as soon as I get an answer, within two

weeks, I will stand in my place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I point out to the hon. Member for St. John's East it is

unparliamentary to tell another member to shut up. I think that is relatively

clear to all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, I do not think that is a particularly

colloquial Newfoundland expression. I think it is more widespread, I've heard it

elsewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, the hon. the minister has more than a

minute left.

MR. MURPHY: The Leader of the Opposition must remember,

as he sometimes needs to be reminded, he is still not in the Chair. He was in

the Chair but he will never get in the Chair again and he knows that. Anyway,

let me say to the hon. member sincerely, I say to you and all other hon.

members, as soon as I get this over and done with I will tell the hon. member as

soon as possible.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few

words in support of the petition presented by my colleague from Baie Verte

-White Bay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was only a few short months ago in this

House when members opposite were tearing the guts out of the federal government

of the day at the time and especially out of the federal minister for the

Province, Mr. Crosbie, because in September month there was no emergency

response program for fisherpersons, plant workers and whatever you have and all

other individuals in this Province. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, some eighteen

months later with the political cousins in Ottawa now, the political cousins in

Ottawa of the same colour, the same political stripe and everything is

hunky-dory, everything is nice, no problems anywhere. Now they are waiting to

bring in a program in conjunction with the federal government. All of a sudden

everything should be done in conjunction with the federal government. Their

federal cousins in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this Province are not worried

about who is in Ottawa. They elected a government in this Province to govern

this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: - and to help out the people in this

Province. They had another election last October for the people in Ottawa. They

will deal with them when the time comes. This crowd here, Mr. Speaker, has done

nothing to help the unemployed in this Province. They are callous, they have no

social conscience and it is about time, Mr. Speaker, that this minister, in

conjunction with his other ministers, do something for the people in this

Province. We have people calling us every day of the week. This is almost

December month - everybody else is worried about doing Christmas shopping, for

what? Those people are waiting, Mr. Speaker, and wondering if they are going to

have something to put on the table for Christmas dinner let alone something for

the rest of this winter. It is time to act.

Mr. Speaker, I will say something else, who brought in and

who suggested the Income Supplementation Program last year? Who made the changes

from ten to twelve weeks that is making it worst on Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians now than ever it did in the past? Who did that? Was that the

federal cousins in Ottawa, was that the lads and the ladies in Ottawa? In

conjunction with who and in cahoots with who, Mr. Speaker? I have people in my

district who always managed to get ten weeks. Now they cannot even get that, a

lot of them cannot even get that but to get twelve? They cannot get ten. Now all

of a sudden the same people who were crowing, moaning and complaining a few

short months ago, everything is alright, how come?

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is about time that this government

brought in a program and brought in a plan to help each and every individual in

this Province, not only plant workers, not only fishermen, not only people - we

have people who need help in the forestry, we have people who need help in the

construction industry, people in every industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker,

are hurting and they should be helped. The time to act is now, Mr. Speaker, not

when we get five or six feet of snow on the ground, not when we cannot get

people out on the roads and out into the ditches and out everywhere to do the

projects. Now is the time. We should have acted before, and now is almost -

really, we are getting into the winter months. What is going to be done?

The same government, the minister, the former Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations made a suggestion last year to people around

this Province, development associations and church groups and so on, to come up

with some meaningful long-term projects. They sent them in. They are over there

now on the minister's desk, on file, hundreds of them if not thousands of them,

Mr. Speaker. No excuse at all. The only excuse and the only reason is one word

called inaction. They did not act. If they don't act in the next few days - not

weeks, not months - there are an awful lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

in this Province who are not only hungry today but will remain hungry for the

rest of this winter.

I submit to the minister to make sure and take the arms of

his colleagues and buckle them up behind their backs and make sure that they get

a program out in the next few days for the people of this Province. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. NOEL: I wish to present a petition on behalf of more

than 100 residents of Rutledge Crescent in my district.

The petition reads:

Whereas the residents of Rutledge

Crescent of St. John's have complained for nearly two years to the Department of

Environment and Lands about the presence of toxic and radioactive gases in their

homes and on the street, and

whereas the residents fear long-term health effects

of these cancer causing gases which are still present in their neighbourhood,

and

whereas the Department of Environment and Lands has not resolved this

problem, wherefore the residents are asking that the following actions be taken:

One, hire an expert to identify the gas and the source of the gas - remediate

all the areas effected; two, continuously monitor the gas in all the houses

affected and in the street to ensure the health and safety of the residents;

three, establish an action limit of .025 parts per million for benzene gas above

which families must be evacuated from their homes; four, conduct quarterly

detailed environmental audits of gas stations and businesses in surrounding

areas; five, collect and monitor health status of all residents affected for the

next twenty years; and number six, determine the level and extent of radioactive

radon gas on the street.

Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of this problem during the

election campaign a year and a half ago, and the residents have been dealing

with it since the previous fall, which is about two years as they say in their

petition. This is a very serious problem as the petition indicates. It has to do

with concerns about gases which are evident in the streets and in people's

homes. The Department of Environment and other officials of government and the

City of St. John's have been very cooperative with residents over the past year

and half that I've been involved with it. We've had numerous meetings and the

residents have been very patient and understanding. They realize it is a

difficult problem and they've been prepared to give all levels of government an

adequate opportunity to deal with it.

They've committed a lot of time themselves and developed a

fair expertise and have a great knowledge of what is involved, the problems

involved, and the potential hazards of the gases. They are concerned for their

health, their family's health, they are concerned for the lack of satisfaction

that they are having living in their homes and living in their neighbourhoods,

and they are concerned for the negative property implications this may have for

their large investments in valuable houses along the streets.

The present minister has given this a great deal of attention

since he has assumed office, as did the previous minister. They've met with the

residents and they've visited the areas and they've spent a lot of time talking

with their officials and with me. They've included me in all their efforts, and

these are continuing. As I understand it the present minister is dealing with

some new consultants at this time and is discussing with the City of St. John's

the possibilities of further action.

All that has been done so far though is traps have been

installed in individuals' homes. That has ensured that the odours are not

apparent in these homes. But individuals are concerned that the gases may still

be in the homes and may be causing damage to the people who reside there.

I do not blame them for losing patience with this matter. It

seems that we have not made any real progress insofar as identifying the source

of the problem and eliminating it. Over the year and a half a lot of money has

been spent and a lot of time and effort. Obviously it is a very difficult source

to identify and we have not used the right expertise or sophisticated enough

equipment so far in order to do a proper job.

Citizens now want government to commit more resources and

more effort to solving the problem. They think we have to find more

authoritative consultants for advice on how to deal with the matter, and they

think there has to be a definite commitment of additional expenditures in order

to excavate parts of the grounds and try to locate what may be the source and

have it eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the minister to continue doing all he

can and to exert all pressures that he can within his department, and with the

city council, in order to solve this matter in a satisfactory manner.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

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

I rise today to support the petition presented by the Member

for Pleasantville. I am quite familiar with the situation at Ruthledge Crescent

and I have been for the past year or so. The residents of Ruthledge Crescent

have a very serious problem in that area. I brought this up in the House before

on a number of occasions, but I do not really know if the previous minister

realized the seriousness of the situation, but I do believe that the present

minister does realize the seriousness of the situation. The problem has been

ongoing for at least two years now and families have had to leave their homes on

occasion because of their children getting sick on the fumes that were coming

through the pipes into their homes.

On November 9 the present minister received a letter from the

residents of Ruthledge Crescent with six requests which have been read out here

today by the Member for Pleasantville. I believe that those requests are quite

reasonable. I had a meeting with the minister shortly after he received that

letter and we did review the requests. Some action is being taken, Mr. Speaker,

but I do not know if there is enough action being taken to solve the problem.

The source of the problem, Mr. Speaker, that seems to be the

major concern here is, where are the fumes coming from and what is causing the

fumes to come into the homes of these people living on Ruthledge Crescent?

Officials of the department seem to believe that the problem is localized to

Ruthledge Crescent in that the tests they have done show that the fumes are

coming from within a small area of the pipes involved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns, or some problems with

that theory, and I could quite easily argue that, but hopefully they are right.

I sincerely hope they are right and that if they do excavate the immediate area

they will find the problem and solve it for the people of Ruthledge Crescent.

Indeed if they are right and the fumes on Ruthledge Crescent are localized in

that immediate area then we have two problems in the Logy Bay Road area. We have

major pollution of the area between, from my perspective, Logy Bay Road, Robin

Hood Bay Road, and Harding Road.

Over the past while I have had occasion to visit the area and

I have seen films of the area showing the pollution, and I think the present

minister has seen them also. There is a brook flowing from the marsh area

between the roads I just mentioned, and it is now culverted and flowing along

Logy Bay Road into Virginia River. The old riverbed, where this river used to

flow, flows along Ruthledge Crescent, so I think there may be some connection

there, but that remains to be seen, Mr. Speaker.

The White Hills depot on Harding Road last fall had a couple

of tanks excavated. They were leaking very badly, and that's in the immediate

area of Ruthledge Crescent. There was soil taken up and transported away from

that area, so that in itself may be causing some of the problems, although

officials of the Department of Environment do not believe that to be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this problem has been ongoing for too

long. If it takes money to be thrown at this to solve the problem, that is what

is going to have to be done. The people in that area cannot be expected to live

under these conditions very much longer. Some of the problems have been solved

by putting traps in the Houses, granted, but if you drive up this crescent you

can actually smell the fumes coming in through the ventilation system in your

car. That has to be a very serious situation. Even if it is not hazardous to

your health it certainly is not a comfortable situation to be living in, Mr.

Speaker, especially if you have children in the area. I would ask the minister

that the least requirement would be, that there will be a complete investigation

done on the whole area, nothing less is warranted and I support the petition

presented by the Member for Pleasantville. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment.

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, thanks very much. I appreciate

the opportunity and welcome the petition from the Member for Pleasantville and

welcome the comments from the Member for St. John's East Extern.

This is a troubling problem, it is a serious problem and it

is a troubling one, Mr. Speaker, because it has been ongoing for approximately

two years. A tremendous amount of resources has been put forward, both by the

City Council of St. John's, the public works department and the Department of

Environment. We have had the federal Department of Environment Canada with their

officials involved and we have had experts in from Ontario. A hydrological study

has been carried out on the water table in the area to check and try to really

get down to narrowing down what the problem can be. That has been really the

process for the last twenty-four months.

Most of these problems, I am told, are normally resolved

within the first few months once certain tests are done or carried out. Normally

you can localize the source or find out what direction it is coming from and

then you can put some resources towards trying to resolve the problem. This one

has been a mystery unfortunately, for some time. Since September we have had a

meeting with the Ruthledge Crescent people, we have met - they have done a

tremendous amount of homework, they have a great deal of concern about this

problem and we have the same concern with the department and with city council.

Tomorrow I will be meeting with city council officials to

discuss the next plan of action that we may be able to take. It may include the

possibility of digging up that part of the street, Mr. Speaker, if that is the

way to go. We are discussing seriously with them that possibility. We think it

is a localized source or our officials, the experts that we have in our

department believe it is. We are talking with another consulting group, we are

asking them for some other advice. We are also asking the previous consultants,

who did an evaluation, for some updated advice and we are going to continue

until we can at least come to a solution to this problem to try to alleviate the

concerns of residents there.

The question of the gases; our officials advise that they

have tested the houses and that the levels are very low but there is still the

question of the potential of it to get further into the houses and the best way

to do this and resolve it is to try to find a solution. Every potential resource

that can be brought to bear will be brought to bear. I have told my officials

that we have to keep at this. We have one person working full time and a second

person looking at potential other ways to look at dealing with it but it has

been a mystery, it has been a troubling mystery and it has been troubling for

the people down there.

I hope that before very, very long and very shortly that we

will have some sort of solution that they do not have to bear with this problem

much longer. We are going to keep at it and anybody who would like to get any

updated information on this matter is welcome to let me know at my office. We

are working continuously on it and I respect the concerns of the residents of

the Ruthledge Crescent area and I hope that maybe very shortly, between city

council and ourselves, that we may hopefully find a solution to this problem and

get to the bottom of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. The prayer of which I

will read:

The people of Placentia District ask the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer; We the undersigned do hereby request the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

generate desperately needed employment in our communities.

This petition comes from one small store in Jerseyside, names

from different parts of the Placentia area, people desperately looking for work,

whatever they can get; they are desperate and they are hurting.

Our area, where I live, the Placentia area, I have told

members here before, unemployment figures are running at 70 per cent, 70 per

cent, would you believe? Nobody has disputed the figures because hon. members on

both sides of this House know the turmoil that is going through the Placentia

area but it also holds true that other parts of the district are not faring much

better either. People are looking for work and are looking for the leadership of

our own provincial government to take the initial step to help them. Why will we

wait for Ottawa when Newfoundland, over the years, has had a reputation of

standing up for its own? Why will we always wait for Ottawa?

Bobby Kennedy one time, and I think it was during the Cuban

crisis made a statement, that Canada, was a great country in time of crisis, it

would do anything but help you. Now, if that is true, if that is the case, I

have the correct statement for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

but it is something to those words I mentioned. Now what we will get from Ottawa

pending negotiations, talk, or whatever you want to mention, from our minister,

with federal counterparts would be gravy, but we want the initiative to be set

by our own government, the one closest to us, and not take a colonial attitude

toward the people for whom they are supposed to be responsible.

The people in our districts do not have hope. You must have

hope, you must have something to cling to, and as other members have said

before, why should they have to wait for weeks and weeks? Christmas is coming,

we want Santa Claus now; people have to plan, people have to feel good about

themselves. Work is not only good for the pocketbook, it is also good for the

minds and it is more important. Mr. Axworthy, the Lord High Executioner, who is

being aided and abetted by the federal government to cut the safety net from

under the people of this country is being let alone.

Last fall, with the stunning victory of the Liberal

Government in Canada, they were zapped, they were in turn stunned by their

victory - that is stunned - now, our own provincial government is stunned -

stunned - or in some kind of a stupor. Wandering around in the dark and cannot

seem to be able to help the people who need the most help.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Stunned, stunned, I say to the hon. member.

The Premier, I have asked him a number of times about help for the Argentia area

when it was going through the phaseout, and he said they could never do any

more, their government, than they did for Labrador City, Baie Verte or Long

Harbour.

Well, I must say to hon. members that indeed the Premier was

consistent because he has not done anything for them either, but to our

minister, waiting for Ottawa is not good enough I say again. Our minister, we

have a prayer we have heard so often, people in trouble say: Lord, have mercy.

Well, I am telling you, the people of this Province will not or should not have

to be saying: Lord, please don't have Murphy; it is Lord, have mercy.

I say again and I repeat, people in this Province are hurting

and hon. members opposite, same as over here know what they are going through.

In the past we have had monies directed to help people, but this year what we

are seeing is $7 million spent to help Hydro -

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

MR. CAREEN: - to sell it off, not to help the people of

this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition of the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes and once again we are faced with -

MR. CAREEN: Placentia, Placentia.

MR. HARRIS: Placentia, I am sorry, his seatmate is from

St. Mary's - The Capes. I didn't want to confuse him with one and the other.

I think the Member for Placentia expresses himself well on

these subjects which are near to the heart of the people, not only in his

district, but all over rural Newfoundland, and indeed in St. John's and urban

centres as well, and that is the issue of employment.

We have come to the point where residents of this Province

are required to petition this House to try to get some action out of the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. We have a situation where the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations seems to be spending all of his time

trying to defend himself about where he lives and how he spends his time running

back and forth to Tors Cove. He seems to be more interested in that issue than

he is in solving the employment problems of the people that he is supposed to be

representing.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) getting worse and worse every

day.

MR. HARRIS: Not only that, I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, he tries to turn an attack on me, and he

speaks to a petition. He turns an attack on me, talking about whether or not

people are full-time MHAs.

Well, I have a good question for the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations. I want to ask him: Does he get to spend any time running

his department? Does he spend any time running the department that is supposed

to be helping the people of this Province find employment? Does he spend any of

his time, or is he a full-time MHA for St. John's South or Tors Cove, or

wherever it is he lives? That is what I have to ask the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations. Does he do any work as Minister of Labour Relations?

Minister of Employment? Does he run the department? And if he doesn't, why is he

getting paid $40,000 a year for being Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, if he doesn't do any work and doesn't spend any time at it?

Mr. Speaker, that goes for every minister of the Crown over

there, but if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was doing his job,

which he gets paid $40,000 a year to do, to be minister, on top of his salary as

an MHA, if he was doing his job, he would be in here telling this House that

there is going to be an employment scheme for people in this Province who need

desperately at this time of year to know that they will be able to support their

families throughout the winter.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations to start talking seriously about the serious problems in this

Province, not running around trying to defend himself about where he lives.

Every time he makes a speech on employment he starts to talk about the number of

telephone calls he receives in Tors Cove. Well, if he receives all these calls,

why isn't he acting on them, and why don't we have a program in this House for

the people who desperately need employment? That is what I would like to see the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations do, because that is his job. That is

the job he took on when he became that minister, in addition to his duties as

Member for St. John's South.

When I hear the minister get up in this House and say that he

has a program that is going to help solve the unemployment problem in this

Province, then I will say that maybe he is doing his job and maybe he deserves

to get pay in addition to his MHA salary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, let me point out from the outset

that I have been listening to these debates and these petitions being presented

since the House opened, I would presume, but certainly there has been a lot of

petitions, and I have to say to you that I support the principle of those

petitions. I don't necessarily support the rhetoric that I have heard. It is

just as difficult to have no job at Easter as it is at Christmas, maybe. If you

are out of work, you are out of work.

I want to commend the minister. I know that this minister has

tried his best to get an emergency response program. I know that he has worked

with Ottawa, I know he is still trying, I believe he is putting every effort

into it, and I support his effort in trying to do it. But there is a fact of

life; there are a few undeniable facts here. These past four years we have had,

in this Province, employment generation programs. It is an undeniable fact also

that the level of employment in those four years was not as bad as it is today

and, unless someone can prove me wrong, the fiscal situation in this Province

was better than it is today.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for wanting to reduce

the deficit, wanting to cut the debt, but there are extremes. I find it very

difficult to understand how in one hand we balance the Budget - well, let me

tell anybody who wants to hear this, Mr. Speaker.

The funding for Emergency Response came from current account

and the government, every year, in August or around there, looked at the

employment situation and decided there was going to be an Employment Generation

Program; it went from $12 million to $6 million depending on the ability and the

need, but it was always done. It was never budgeted because you never knew if

there would be one. It was done by Special Warrant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Premier and I support the

Premier and the Cabinet in announcing that we are going to have a balanced

budget or no deficit or surplus on current account, so I say this: it is just as

important to the fiscal situation in this Province, Mr. Speaker, to reduce the

borrowing on capital account. While I don't particularly want to go to Windsor -

Buchans next year, Mr. Speaker, or this Fall, and announce that there is no

capital works, I will guarantee you, if I were put in a position today to have

to tell them that there is no pavement next year on the Buchans-Badger Road, as

opposed to announcing a thirty-or-forty-job program, I would be prepared to give

up capital works, so let's reduce the deficit further.

Let's reduce the deficit further, Mr. Speaker, let's reduce

capital works by $10 million, and I don't care what capital works - whether it

is roads, schools, it doesn't matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I supported -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I supported capital works; I

fought for the capital works program, whether it was in schools, in roads, in

hospitals; I always supported and tried to get every cent out of capital account

and always had to come out borrowing, but what I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, is

that in a crisis situation - and we are in a crisis situation. There are people

in this Province today, Mr. Speaker - and never mind the rhetoric - there are

people in this Province today who are never going back, who are going on

welfare, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in their lives; and there is no

guarantee when they go they won't stay and, Mr. Speaker, people talk about

welfare as fifty-cent dollars. Well, Mr. Speaker, if they are fifty-cent dollars

for a number of years, they may soon become 100 cent dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I believe and I know the government is

considering an emergency response program, I know the minister is working on it,

and he has my support and I believe the support of, certainly, everybody on this

side of the House to do what can be done, to create an emergency response

program, to take care of the people who, for the first time in their lives will,

indeed, go on welfare.

There is a philosophy here also, Mr. Speaker, and I guess the

philosophy at the end, governments of the past had to consider it, governments

of the future will have to consider it and the philosophy is, whether or not it

is better to have people working or to have them on welfare. Because that is

what it has come down to in this Province, Mr. Speaker, make no doubt about

that. It has come down to that, and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there has been

no time, certainly, in my district - hundreds of people in the Central

Newfoundland area were employed by these Emergency Response Programs, and I see

no evidence, Mr. Speaker, that jobs will be created in Central Newfoundland over

the next two or three years that would give them permanent jobs to the extent

that they won't need short-term, seasonal employment. When someone can - they

don't have to convince me -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Just to wind up, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: I think it is a fact of life, Mr. Speaker,

that the government of this Province now and in the next ten years will have to

cope with, the government in Ottawa should cope with, that a lot of the people

in this Province in the next five or six or seven or eight years, if they are

going to work, they are going to work seasonally, because there is not enough

time to create permanent, full-time jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, I will admit by the

very nature of employment, seasonal employment, Mr. Speaker, is a fact of life

in this Province, whether it is funded by Ottawa, by the Province, or by the

private sector.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I support the government in their efforts

to create an employment generation program in the Province, this Fall, now, Mr.

Speaker, because it is getting late and people are going to welfare for the

first time in their lives. They should be spared the embarrassment of having to

go to seek welfare for the first time in their lives and, Mr. Speaker, up until

this year, hundreds and hundreds, I could probably go as high as thousands of

people avoided having to go to welfare, Mr. Speaker, because there was always an

employment - something that they could have turned to. There is nothing now, Mr.

Speaker, and the time has come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that members opposite

acknowledge that my friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans has made a far

better speech than people on the other side made, and he deserves the thump.

My understanding is that before we rise today we shall deal

with Bills No.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm just waiting for the Leader of the

Opposition to control himself for a moment, if he can.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair can't hear the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I call for order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is, before we

rise today we will deal with Order 10, which is Bill 5 - that is the

Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association act. We will begin first with the

adjourned debate on Order 14, which is Bill 18. I believe the hon. the Member

for Menihek adjourned the debate yesterday.

May I add that on Thursday - and perhaps members opposite

could cogitate - we will ask, and I'm open to which of these they prefer to

debate -

MR. TOBIN: Sit down so that (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I ask my sensible friends

opposite, which leaves out the gentleman, the Member for Burin - Placentia West,

I fear, to consider whether they wish to deal on Thursday with Order 22, which

is the Advance Health Care Directives bill, or whether they wish to deal with

the Kruger legislation, which is Order 23, Bill 42. On this side we are prepared

to debate either, but at some point during the afternoon I will have a word

behind the Chair with my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, and we will get an

indication.

With that said, Your Honour, if you would be kind enough,

Sir, to call Order 14, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 14, Bill No. 18,

An Act To Amend

The Assessment Act.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just

want to continue the few very brief remarks that I started with yesterday. I

just want to speak a little about the effect that this particular bill is going

to have on the revenues of municipalities, which is very important.

Having been involved with municipal government for some

eighteen years, I can identify with some of the problems that municipalities

have with regard to the changing in funds that occurs from time to time because

of changing regulations or changing methods of funding to municipalities,

whether it is on the government's behalf or from people paying grants and

grants-in-lieu, such as a municipality which I happen to be involved with in

Western Labrador, the Town of Labrador City.

At times, we have found ourselves in the municipal government

with getting extra revenues from the Province because of a change in grant. What

would happen was that the mining company would discount the amount of extra

funds that we would get from the Province in matching grants, and then the

company would discount that increase from their grant-in-lieu. You would be

attempting - you would feel you would get so much from the government and so

much from the Province, and then all of sudden you would get this coming back

from the - when you get your quarterly cheque from the company, the town would

find itself short a couple of hundred thousand dollars. And you would go back

and talk to the company and they would tell you why they were doing it. They

felt that the government was paying more, so they should have to pay less.

This started the Town of Labrador City to go ahead and get a

long-term financial agreement from the Iron Ore Company of Canada and stop that

kind of disruption, if you will, to the budgetary process that occurred in that

particular municipality. Of course, the same thing occurs on the Provincial

Government side when they change

an act or the grant formula with regard to - in

particular, this Bill 18. They are going to change it and it is going to have an

effect on different municipalities. All municipalities, I believe, or the vast

majority of municipalities, are going to be negatively impacted on their taxes

or on their revenue in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I would say every

municipality that is affected, it is going to be a negative impact.

You are going to expect other people to be paying other than

the utilities or the cable companies, and especially - the three utility

companies are the big ones, Newfoundland Hydro, Newfoundland Light and Power and

Newfoundland Telephone. These are the ones - it will negatively impact on their

amount of taxes that are going to be accruing to different municipalities

effected.

In my district I see a tremendous negative effect on the town

of Wabush. I've addressed this with the former Minister of Justice and the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and explained to them how it is

going to impact. They have said to me that this is going to be corrected. They

have said in the House that it is going to be corrected. I believe the minister

suggested that it is going to be corrected within the next week or so. The

correction with the problem with regard to Wabush, you -

MR. REID: No, I didn't say that.

MR. A. SNOW: My understanding was what he did say was

that - the minister seems to be backing off a bit here. It seems to be that he

is backing off a bit now from the suggestion that I thought I heard him say

yesterday. He and the Minister of Justice said that they would attempt to

correct it. Because there is a $300,000 shortfall on what they had anticipated

receiving - the town of Wabush is going to have a $300,000 shortfall on what

they had anticipated receiving or what they would have received if this change

hadn't been pushed through the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

That is a tremendous shortfall. Three hundred thousand

dollars on the budget of Wabush is almost 10 per cent of the revenues of Wabush.

That is a tremendous shortfall to have on your budget. I want to quote. The

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said yesterday, and I will quote

from Hansard, page 2590: "So I am hoping that a committee of Cabinet, which has

been appointed to look at that particular one, will be able to deal with that in

the next couple of days so that we can have something rectified before this bill

actually is approved, say tomorrow."

MR. TOBIN: The next couple of days, before the bill is

approved!

MR. REID: What did I say?

MR. A. SNOW: It is going to be rectified.

MR. REID: And I would hope?

MR. A. SNOW: Rectified. Mr. Speaker, I believe the

minister when he says he is going to rectify this problem. The people, the

councillors and the mayor of Wabush believe that the minister can correct this

problem. I would hope that they will rectify this problem, because that is a

tremendous shortfall, especially in light of what is occurring with the town of

Wabush at the present time. The town of Wabush is attempting to negotiate a

long-term financial agreement with the mining company to have a grant in lieu

because they aren't taxable, because this government refuses to change the act

which excludes them from taxes. They cannot tax the mining company and get the

additional revenue, so they have to sit down and negotiate a deal with the

mining company for a grant in lieu.

I would suspect that they are at a negotiating table

attempting to get a certain amount of money from the mining company, only to

find that maybe the mining company is going to be - or maybe that the government

is going to, because of this act, is going to negatively impact or change in the

act, is going to negatively impact the town of Wabush of some $300,000, which is

a tremendous amount of money.

It bothers me that this government since they've been elected

in 1989 have made several changes with regard to the operation of municipalities

and the operating grants and with the MOG. I can remember being involved with

the municipal government in Labrador City when the previous administration

changed their method of matching grants to the collections. Back in I believe -

the municipal grants act was 1981? Anyway, we found ourselves in a position in

Labrador City at that particular time of one year going from a $300,000 revenue

from the Province at the time and the following year getting $1.3 million, which

was a tremendous so-called windfall for us, as a municipal government.

What it was, the government of the day decided that they

should change the municipal act to have a grant to encourage municipalities to

have more taxation, more municipal taxes, to collect more, because there was a

certain abhorrence, a definite abhorrence, to municipalities imposing a property

tax.

Now, I don't know why we end up paying less in this Province,

but we all recognize that we have to pay taxes. There is no such thing as a free

lunch, or a free ride. We all have to pay our way, but we in Labrador City found

a million dollars more because we paid our taxes. We always paid our taxes in

Labrador City.

Mr. Speaker, the same thing occurred, I forget the exact

figures, but a similar type of approach in Wabush, they had a similar type of

impact on their property tax, or their revenues, from the Province under the

previous municipal grants act.

Since this government has taken over we have seen nothing but

strip, strip, strip. That is all we have seen. We have seen cut after cut. That

is all they do, cut. Change the act so that the municipality will get less from

the government in grants, and they get less from the large corporations in

taxes, such as the Newfoundland Telephone Company, or Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, that bothers me quite a bit. It really bothers

me, because I feel that what we should be doing - we have to appreciate - we

just can't download responsibilities on the government, on the municipal

government - we can't do it - and then expect we remove so called tax room for

them. If we are going to give them the responsibility, we have to give them the

right of taxes, because along with those responsibilities comes certain rights,

and it should be, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that if this government wants to - I can understand

where they are coming from; I just don't agree with what they are doing, and

neither will most people who have any involvement with municipal government

agree with what they are doing.

MR. WOODFORD: This government is finished.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber Valley

suggests that this government is finished. I would suspect that a lot of people

out and about the Province are saying this government is finished. They are

doing things in here. They just don't understand what is happening out and about

the streets of this Province, but I am hoping that the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs and his Cabinet colleagues, the Cabinet committee that he

talked about - I don't know who is on it - but I would hope that he is paying

attention and that he will rectify the problem in Wabush, because $300,000 -

almost 10 per cent of their operating budget for this municipality - is being

stripped because of a change in

an act here that we are asking to pass here

today, 10 per cent of their operating budget, $300,000. That is a tremendous

amount of money for a small municipality like Wabush to get from somewhere else,

because that is what they have to do. They have to get $300,000 out of somebody

else's pockets. Are they expected to go back and tax the small businesses?

I don't believe that the businesses in Wabush can support a

tremendous tax increase that that cut would necessitate. So what do they do?

They are going to come to the government and ask the government to help them

out, because this is extraordinary. It is extraordinary that a small

municipality like Wabush would lose 10 per cent of its budget by a simple little

change to giving more money to these large corporations basically is what it

comes down to, more money to Newfoundland Hydro or the Newfoundland Telephone

Company. Those are the two big boys that this helps save money for. So I am

hoping, and so are the people of Wabush and the council of Wabush hoping, they

are going to correct it.

With regard to the Town of Labrador City, it doesn't have the

same amount of impact. I would suspect that Labrador City probably has about the

same negative impact as most of the other municipalities of its size throughout

the Province. I don't know; I haven't checked. Maybe the minister could respond

when he concludes debate on this bill, because I am sure he knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I know Labrador City has a negative impact.

All the municipalities are going to be negatively impacted, I would say.

Ninety-nine per cent of the municipalities of this Province are going to have a

negative impact because of this change, I would suspect. I don't know what the

impact is going to be in other districts, in other municipalities. By looking at

the change we know that it is going to be a negative impact for 99 per cent of

the municipalities in this Province. Is that correct? The minister nods in an

affirmative manner.

MR. REID: No, no, I'm not nodding, (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I can't believe that the minister is

suggesting that he doesn't know what the impact is going to be on this bill.

MR. REID: (Inaudible). I can't tell you.

MR. A. SNOW: It is going to be more than 50 per cent,

more than 70 per cent, but it is all negative. It can't be positive. I can't see

how any - would the minister explain how any municipality would have a positive

cash flow - there is no way. Now he says: No, that is impossible to occur. It is

impossible with the change in this act for a municipality to have an increase in

revenue. Having said that we all know now then that it is going to be a negative

impact. All of them are going to have a negative impact.

I'm amazed that the minister doesn't know how much of a

negative impact it is going to have in the municipalities. I don't have the

research capabilities that the minister has. I would have thought that the

minister would have all of the figures to back up exactly how much it is going

to negatively impact the municipalities. If it is $300,000 on a small community

like Wabush - I know Labrador City is a lot larger community, or three, four

times as large, but they only have an impact of about $10,000 to $12,000, is my

understanding. I would suspect that Grand Falls and Gander are going to have

negative impacts of similar amounts. My understanding is that municipalities

here on the Avalon Peninsula - other people speaking may want to address that -

but I know they are going to be negatively impacted.

I'm amazed that the minister does not know how much. I don't

know if he is just being fast and loose or he just doesn't know what is going

on. Mr. Speaker, I do know that the negative impact on the municipality of

Wabush is $300,000, around 10 per cent of their total operating budget. That is

going to have a tremendous impact if the town of Wabush has to increase taxes,

either in the business community or the residential community. Because we know

how it works. You just can't go out and say: We are going to charge so-and-so so

much. You can't tax them to death, you can't put them under. They have to be

cognizant of the effect that higher taxes are going to have on the smaller

businesses that are operating in Wabush.

I'm hoping that the minister will correct or rectify the

problem. I offered him a solution, that what has to happen - the reason why it

is so negatively impacted in Wabush is the fact that they are not going to be

able to tax the equipment in property owned by CF(L)Co. There is no other

municipality that has that method and that piece of equipment owned by that

particular company. CF(L)Co. doesn't own property in any other municipality. All

we have to do is exclude CF(L)Co. from this particular bill, that is all. That

will correct the problem for Wabush. They will still have the same negative

impacts on the equipment that is in the garages, or their bakeries, or those

types of processes that this bill effects. They will still have that negative

impact, but they won't have the almost $300,000 impact that CF(L)Co. causes

them.

I'm hoping that the minister will rectify this problem. I've

offered a solution to it. I'm not here just complaining. I'm not just saying

this is wrong what they are doing. I know it is wrong what they are doing, yes,

but I'm also offering a solution to the problem. The solution would be to

exclude CF(L)Co. from this particular act. That could solve the problem, in my

opinion. That could solve the problem for this particular municipality. There is

no other municipality that would be effected because CF(L)Co. doesn't operate in

any other municipality. They can do it if they wish. If there is a will in the

government to do it they can do it, and they would be able to help the people of

Wabush and the town council of Wabush.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs will rectify the problem that he has created with this

particular bill and, Mr. Speaker, this will greatly enhance the financial

position of the community of Wabush and thus help the people of Wabush. Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to make a few comments on Bill No. 18. Mr. Speaker, my

colleague just mentioned the fact that municipalities are finding it very

difficult to balance their budgets. There seems to be a pattern that has been

established over the last number of years of downloading on municipal levels.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw some references to the bill and the effects

it will have on the City of Mount Pearl. I do not have data for the City of St.

John's but I would like to deal with the impacts that it will have on the City

of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, there are nineteen businesses that are affected

in Mount Pearl and they have a total of, in machinery and equipment, a total

assessed value of $1,558,900.00. Now the department has advised the municipality

that of that amount about 80 per cent of it would be exempt from taxes, that is

just the value of the equipment and machinery. That would mean, Mr. Speaker,

that about $1.3 million would then be exempt from taxation and it would mean

that about $35,000 would be lost to the City of Mount Pearl. Now, Mr. Speaker,

while that is not a small amount it certainly will not have a dramatic increase

to cause the City of Mount Pearl to have to increase its taxation rate to its

citizens.

What I would like to ask the minister, when he gets a chance

to speak, is to clarify some of the things that are included as equipment and

machinery. For example, I think he mentioned yesterday that freezing plants,

they will still be counted as machinery and equipment, the car wash equipment

will be still counted, parts of the original structure of a building is

mentioned in the act itself and that will still be included. Conveyors,

escalators and elevators will all be still included as machinery and equipment.

I think there were some comments yesterday that machinery and equipment would

include the gas pumps of a service station but would not include the oil storage

tanks around a service station. So therefore the oil storage tanks would still

be eligible for inclusion in the assessed value but that the pumps themselves

would not.

Mr. Speaker, in Mount Pearl the effect would save taxation

dollars for nineteen businesses, ten service stations, five banks, I believe,

two laundromats but that the details of how the laundromats will be included or

excluded has not been quite made clear yet by the assessment division. Very

interesting is that the businesses that are affected, to get the most savings of

this in Mount Pearl, happens to be banks. So therefore we have five banks and I

am led to understand that the vaults in the banks will now not be eligible as

part of the assessed value, which means of course that the city will lose about

$18,000 from revenue that would ordinarily be paid by the banks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that banks in this Province, in

this country, are among the most lucrative businesses. What we are doing is, in

essence we are making the businesses that are already doing quite well, even

more well off. The overall effect of course is $35,000 a year added to the

$5,000 which the city has already lost when we made the changes to Newfoundland

Tel, Newfoundland Light and Power and to Cable Atlantic by excluding their

equipment and machinery.

The city would like to have it noted that they felt that

there should have been a higher level of consultation. For example, even at this

late stage, there is still some concern about what is included in machinery and

equipment and what is excluded. The minister, a few seconds ago, admitted that

he did not know all the details of what was included in these two categories.

The Mayor of Mount Pearl has written the minister asking for clarification,

asking for details and asking for the list of the types of equipment that will

be included and those which will be excluded, and asking the minister if he

would try to get as much information out to municipalities as he can, before the

preparation of the budgetary or the completion of the budgetary process in the

next few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments I thank you and thank

the minister.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The same as my colleague from Waterford - Kenmount, I am

going to be very brief.

I share the concerns expressed by the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount and the Member for Menihek about the squeeze play the government is

putting on municipalities, on the one hand the government has been driving up

municipal costs by downloading responsibilities such as snow clearing, and on

the other the government has been decreasing municipal revenues by cutting

provincial grants and by lessening municipal taxation power.

Having said that, I want to express support for the principle

of this bill, the principle embodied in deleting from the definition of

property, machinery and equipment. For quite some time I have maintained that

equipment intensive businesses have had to bear an unfair portion of municipal

taxes in municipalities such as the City of Corner Brook, which chose to include

the value of machinery and equipment in the appraised value to which municipal

taxes were applied.

Equipment and machinery do not indicate the profitability of

the business, so why should a business in Corner Brook such as the cement plant

or a photography firm or a printing plant pay proportionately more taxes than a

business such as a law firm or an accounting office which is not equipment

intensive, so I think it is fair to make the change embodied in this bill, and

municipalities can recoup the loss from taking equipment and machinery out of

the definition of property by shifting the burden among all businesses, taking

some of the burden off equipment intensive businesses and passing it on to other

businesses; businesses which, might all along have been more profitable.

There is some hardship involved in this adjustment, the same

as all the other changes the provincial government has inflicted on

municipalities, and perhaps there should have been more notice but I do agree

with the principle set out in this bill, and having made this point privately on

a number of occasions in the past, I wanted to take advantage of this second

reading debate on the amendment to express my support.

Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs, if he speaks now, will close the debate.

MR. REID: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much

to the number of colleagues who expressed an interest in this particular bill. I

will endeavour to assure the Member for Menihek that the question on the amount

of money and the problem that Wabush has in particular will be hopefully

addressed in the next little while. I cannot make any promises as to what we are

going to do with it but I do have some other communities in the Province that

would be directly affected.

Mr. Speaker, I will now move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amendment The Assessment Act,"

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

tomorrow. (Bill No. 18)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, moving right along as we are

could we go to Order 10, Bill No. 5, "An Act To Continue The Newfoundland

Pharmaceutical Association". My friend the Minister of Health will stun us with

his eloquence at this stage.

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

Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association." (Bill No. 5)

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

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

Bill 5 is

an act to continue the Newfoundland Pharmaceutical

Act and what I will do is review the items in the bill that are new and that are

different from existing legislation. The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Act dates

back to 1950. It was brought forward in the House in 1970 and again in 1990 to

have it updated somewhat. The purpose of the revisions to it, the amendments and

additions, that are contained in this exercise I will mention as we go through

it.

Basically, part of the exercise of bringing this bill in is

to update and modernize the language in the act to bring it more in sync with

what is happening in the industry today, and to couch it in wording and in terms

that are more reflective of today's activities in the pharmaceutical industry.

One of the major changes in the act, Mr. Speaker, is to

change or enhance the educational requirements in the act. Once upon a time the

process to becoming a pharmacist was as simple as going through an

apprenticeship program. It moved from there to requiring some formal training at

the Cabot Institute, and it has now moved to a circumstance where in order to be

licensed as a pharmacist in the Province there is a requirement to obtain a

degree in pharmacy from a recognized university.

The bill is reflective of this new educational structure that

is a prerequisite and a requirement for the licensing of pharmacists in the

Province. It also provides for the continuing of the council that is a part of

the Pharmaceutical Association. The council is really, I guess, the managing

body within the association and they have regulatory making powers to the extent

that they can make proposals. They are not effective, of course, until they come

forward and are signed off by the Minister of Health or the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council.

This new and improved bill seeks to have that continued in

that manner. One of the other aspects of the bill is an improvement in the area

of the disciplinary section. That

section is that part of the bill which allows

for people who have a complaint, I guess, or want to bring forward an objection

or complaint under the act, with a view to disciplining those who practice

pharmacy, can do so.

One of the improvements in this

section of the bill has to do

with a provision that not only allows for an appeal process by the pharmacist or

the member constituent who was being disciplined, or sought to be disciplined,

but there is also a provision for an appeal by one who lodges the complaint

itself. That is a new provision in the act as well.

Another change or clarification that is being put forward in

the act is to clarify the role and the ability of nurses to be able to dispense

drugs, in certain situations, in the Province. Under the old act, the nurses are

recognized as being an employee of government and, in certain rural situations,

they were, and I guess still are, in a situation where they have to not

prescribe drugs, but dispense drugs. Under the amendments that are being

provided for here, nurses are being recognized as not an employee of government

any longer but an employee of the various health care boards who are now the

legal and legitimate employers of nurses. The act is being amended and changed

to take care of that situation.

Another aspect of the amendments that are before us in this

one is to add to the act,

Part V, which really brings in under the

pharmaceutical act the - it seeks to join under, to put under this act, the act

that is known as the Generic Dispensing Of Drugs Act. Under the amendments or

the changes being provided for here, the Generic Dispensing Of Drugs Act will be

joined into and become part of

An Act To Continue The Newfoundland

Pharmaceutical Association, and it will be known as

Part V of the act.

The act with respect to the dispensing of pharmaceutical

drugs, of course, or the act with respect to how, and the responsibilities of

pharmacists in terms of dispensing drugs, really requires pharmacists now to

ensure that people who are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: That is a drug.

- it requires pharmacists to take certain actions with

respect to ensuring that people who are having prescriptions filled are

understanding of the fact that where there are generic drugs on the market that

can meet the need at a cheaper price, pharmacists are required to indicate that

to people who are having their prescriptions taken care of. They are then, of

course, able to go ahead and fill the prescription with a higher-priced drug

providing they have given that information to the patient, if you like. As long

as they know that they are paying more for a drug that is not a generic drug. It

puts the onus of the requirement of responsibility to ensure that this happens,

on the pharmacist who is dispensing the drugs.

To summarize, I guess, Mr. Speaker, the changes to the act

that we have here really do four or five things. They really modernize the

language; they change the educational requirement to a degree situation for

somebody who wants to become licensed as a pharmacist; they enhance the

disciplinary sections of the act to ensure that not only the person who is

sought to be disciplined has a right to appeal, but the complainant also has a

right to appeal if they are not happy with the decision; and it joins to the act

the Generic Dispensing Of Drugs act as a new section, as a new part, to

An Act

To Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association.

These are basically the main changes, the main provisions of

the act. I would suggest that these are basically housekeeping items,

non-controversial items, and items that the Legislature, the members of the

House, should not have any difficulty with in terms of understanding why they

are being brought in here, and the reasons for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 5, "An Act To Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical

Association" - I think the aspects of the bill are very positive. In fact, I

have no problem with continuing a Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association. I

have a problem with continuing the minister. Maybe we should discontinue the

minister.

Over all, I don't think there is anything of concern. In

fact, the question I ask is: Why wasn't it done previously? I think it was

intended to be brought in in the spring session. I am sure the Pharmaceutical

Association is eager to have this process through so they can get on and deal

with things they need to address that would stem from this new revised act. I

think it is positive, too, to get it under this act with the Generic Dispensing

Of Drugs Act, to be able to repeal that and get it incorporated now into the Act

To Continue The Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Act.

I don't see anything that would unduly prolong the passage of

this bill here in the House, and with that I conclude my remarks on the bill.

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

speaks now, he will close the debate.

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

The comments of the Member for Ferryland, my hon. critic over

there, are most welcome. The brevity of them is noted and acknowledged, and the

support that he lends to the amendments and the additions to the bill is also

appreciated.

To answer the only question that he raised, why this was not

done earlier, I can only say that it didn't get done earlier because -

DR. HULAN: You weren't the minister.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: My colleague tells me it didn't get done

earlier because I wasn't the minister.

However, the circumstance is in front of us now where second

reading is upon us, and I appreciate the support that the Opposition, the

members on the other side, have expressed for the amendments as put forward by

the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Continue The Newfoundland

Pharmaceutical Association," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee

of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 5)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps since we have run out

of the two bills that we said we would do today, thanks to the most excellent

co-operation by members on both sides, we might -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I shall remember it, I say to my friend.

- we might go into Committee rather than begin second reading

debate on - I could offer my friends a choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Second reading on 41.

MR. ROBERTS: Alright, second reading on Bill 41 then, the

bill that stands in my name, Order 22, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 22.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Advance

Health Care Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care Decision

Makers". (Bill No. 41)

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

MR. ROBERTS: It stands in my name in a former life, Mr.

Speaker, but I think, as a member of the Ministry, I am entitled to move a

government order, and I will.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I shall not speak for long in opening the

debate on this bill, but I do want to make two or three points which I believe

will commend the bill to the House.

First of all, let me say that this bill is the product of a

long and very thorough consultative and consultation process. It came originally

from a paper developed by the Law Reform Commission, written in large part by

Christopher Curran, who was then the executive director of the commission and is

now a senior solicitor in the civil division of the Justice Department.

The Law Reform Commission's paper was made public several

years ago, and there was a certain amount of discussion about it at the time.

Subsequently, a committee was struck comprising representatives, among others,

of the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association - NHNHA - the

Newfoundland Medical Association, the Association of Registered Nurses of

Newfoundland -which is not the nursing union but is the nurses' certification

body - and a number of private citizens with a deep interest in this field.

Among the people who took a very leading role in the work of

that committee were two individuals who would be well known to members of the

House: Dr. Harry Watts, who is the executive director of the Western Memorial

Hospital in Corner Brook, and Sister Elizabeth Davis, who was, and I guess,

still is, to be precise, the executive director or the chief executive officer

of St. Clare's Mercy Hospital here in St. John's, and is the CEO-designate, I

guess, of the new -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: She is the new CEO.

MR. ROBERTS: The new CEO, my friend, the Minister of

Health reminds me, of the St. John's hospital, or whatever official name we are

putting on the corporation which will operate and run all of the hospitals in

St. John's.

Sister Elizabeth and Dr. Watts were very active in the work

of developing this bill. They produced a discussion paper. They had a number of

- I was going to say there were teleconferences. They were teleconferences by

telephone as opposed to the teleconference by television, and there was a

certain amount of input from people across the Province, as a result of which

this bill was developed. That is the first point I would make.

The second point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill

is a companion piece to legislation that was adopted in 1990, if memory serves

me. I wasn't here in the House. I was downtown, moiling and toiling as a humble

lawyer, if members on either side choose to believe that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I realize, Mr. Speaker, there are those who

say that a humble lawyer is an oxymoron in itself, such as Loyal Opposition, or

what have you. In any event, when the companion legislation was adopted, I was

not a member of this House, I was moiling and toiling at the Bar. For the

benefit of