November

9, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 60

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some residents of Sheshatshiu, In Labrador, have

allowed the Hydro meters to be removed from their homes and some other buildings

in the community. These meters have been replaced with homemade 'jumpers', which

enables electricity to flow into the home without being metered. Peter Penashue,

the President of the Innu nation and a resident of Sheshatshiu, has said

publicly that the removal of the meters has been done deliberately, as part of a

plan to stop paying for the electricity consumed by Innu.

These actions raise three specific issues, Mr. Speaker. The

first is the safety hazard; the second is the question of payment for the

electricity being consumed by the Innu; and the third is the matter of the land

claims negotiations.

The removal of these meters, and the way in which Mr.

Penashue and his associates have reconnected the power to their homes, creates a

very real and substantial safety hazard. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has

advised residents of this danger, in a letter to Mr. Penashue and in public

service announcements that were broadcast in Happy Valley-Goose Bay throughout

the weekend. Hydro will be sending a letter to every customer in Sheshatshiu to

reinforce this warning. I want to take this opportunity to stress the risk that

has been created by tampering with these meters. I am told by Hydro that what

has been done presents a risk of electrical shock, with the potential of causing

severe bodily injury, or even death, to anybody who comes into contact with the

jumper or an exposed electrical connection.

Electrical safety inspections are the responsibility of the

Department of Employment and Labour Relations. The potential dangers were

reported to the inspector at Goose Bay last Friday, and he was asked to assess

any safety hazards presented by the removal of the meters and the reconnection

of the power supply to the individual consumers. Mr. Penashue has refused to

co-operate with the inspector. My colleagues and I are greatly concerned about

this attitude and its possible consequences.

The residents of Sheshatshiu are still receiving electricity.

The steps taken by some of them are an attempt to prevent Hydro from billing

individual customers for the power they consume. That attempt will not succeed,

Mr. Speaker. The people of Sheshatshiu must pay for electricity, just as does

any other resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

has installed a bulk metering system to record the amount of electricity

consumed by users in Sheshatshiu. Measures are being instituted to ensure the

electricity will be paid for.

Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that the unauthorized appropriation

of electricity is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Penashue has attempted to tie the refusal to pay for

electricity to land claims negotiations. There is no connection between the two.

The government began land claims negotiations with the Innu in July of 1991. The

federal government withdrew from these in May of 1992. The Innu nation has

refused the Province's offer to continue bilateral negotiations. If the Innu can

demonstrate a legitimate aboriginal claim in respect of lands affected by the

Upper Churchill project, then they will receive the compensation that is

appropriate. We have told Mr. Penashue and his colleagues that we are prepared

to address their claim for compensation in this context. Actions such as the one

they have now undertaken do nothing to advance their claim, nor to create a

proper climate for negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Innu Nation is attempting

to provoke a confrontation. We cannot condone such tactics and we will not be

affected by them. We are prepared to deal fairly with the Innu people, but we

are not going to be coerced or blackmailed. The government cannot proceed with

any further negotiations with the Innu with respect to any matter until they

stop this action. I call upon Mr. Penashue and his fellow Innu to do so at once.

I am also tabling a copy of my letter to Mr. Penashue setting out more

specifically the government's position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Torngat Mountains, who often speaks for us

on these matters, said on Friday in the Legislature, he does not and we do not

support the action of the Innu. We have said that publicly on Friday, so we

presume that there are no negotiations under way, anyway. I think the Premier

said in the statement: We cannot proceed any further with negotiations.

PREMIER WELLS: There are negotiations.

MR. SIMMS: There are? Because I understood, in the

previous paragraph, that the Innu had refused the Province's offer to continue

bilateral negotiations back in May.

PREMIER WELLS: That is land claims, but there are others.

MR. SIMMS: Okay. I am dealing specifically with land

claims. There are no negotiations with respect to land claims ongoing at the

moment, is that correct?

PREMIER WELLS: Not that I know of (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay.

In any event, there is not much one can say about it, Mr.

Speaker. We think the government has taken the right action in this particular

case, and I have no difficulty saying that. As I said, my colleague, the Member

for Torngat Mountains, already made that point on Friday in speaking here in the

Legislature. I hope the matter can be resolved through whatever means. I think

the government's offer to sit down and talk with the Innu is an appropriate

gesture. I hope they accept the Premier's offer made in his letter, at the end,

where he says: We are quite prepared to discuss the situation. I think that is

the proper way to deal with it. Hopefully they will accept that invitation, and

sit down and try to resolve the problems, so they can get on with dealing with

the other important issues that affect their people and our people, as well.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to clarify government's policy with respect to

mammography services in this Province. Over the past few years, new mammography

equipment has been purchased by a number of hospital boards, and equipment is

now located in St. Anthony, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander, Clarenville,

Carbonear, and in St. John's at St. Clare's and the Grace. For a period of time,

waiting periods for mammography were short and in many centres were of one to

two weeks duration. However, over the past year or so, waiting times for routine

screening mammography services have increased. Currently, in St. John's, the

waiting period for screening is approximately four months. Elsewhere, the period

is generally much less.

Mr. Speaker, there are two types of mammography services. One

is diagnostic mammography, which is used for women whom their physicians have

found from clinical examination to need additional diagnostic work. In these

circumstances, mammography is one of the important follow-up diagnostic tools.

The other form of mammography is called screening mammography, where women have

mammography performed in an attempt to detect breast lesions before they are

otherwise clinically detectable by examination. The patients on our waiting

lists are largely for screening mammography. For diagnostic mammography there

should be no waiting list, because a physician can initiate the earlier

performance of mammography by contacting the radiologist at the site where the

mammography is to be performed.

The policy with respect to screening mammography varies

across Canada. In Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, screening mammography is

targeted on women fifty to sixty-nine years of age every two years. In British

Columbia, annual screening is recommended to women over forty. Nova Scotia has a

screening program for women aged fifty to sixty-nine, available in Halifax.

Quebec and Manitoba have no screening program. New Brunswick, Prince Edward

Island and Newfoundland have made no decision respecting screening programs.

Our Department of Health has studied the literature on

screening mammography and had planned to wait until the publication of the

National Breast Screening Study before developing a definitive policy on the

promotion and development of an organized breast screening program for the

Province. Research has indicated that screening for women 50-69 may be

worthwhile, although new evidence is questioning the extent of the benefit. In

the Province of Manitoba a review of research, expert opinion, and experience

was conducted by the Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening. They reported

that the evidence did not indicate any worthwhile benefit for women under 50,

unless there is a family history of breast cancer or unless there are other

special reasons. One of their recommendations was that no mammography screening

program be initiated at that time. That was December, 1991. The group stated

that the evidence to date provided insufficient proof of health benefits to

justify a provincial breast screening mammography program. They further

recommended that screening mammography be discouraged in women under the age of

50 years who show no evidence of the disease.

However, given the major health problem that breast cancer

poses to women in this Province, I want to be sure that an appropriate policy is

in place to deal with this issue. I am, therefore, establishing a broadly based

committee to review the information from studies to date including the report of

the Manitoba Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening, and the results of the

National Breast Screening Study when this becomes shortly available, to

determine whether there should be a breast screening mammography program in this

province and, if so, what age groups, organizational issues, and quality issues

need to be addressed.

I will be asking this working group to carry out their task

expeditiously, in view of the concern we all have for this very serious disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I raised this issue in

the House of Assembly with the former Minister of Health back in June. Now the

waiting period at that time was about a three month waiting period. Then it went

from a three month waiting period up to a four and a half month waiting period.

Virtually in that period of time nothing has been done by the Department of

Health to clear up the backlog of people who are waiting to have that vital

service performed. Absolutely nothing has been done by the ministry of Health in

that area, and now we see the Minister of Health coming into the House of

Assembly today and establishing a committee that will probably report,

undoubtedly after an election campaign, five or six months down the road, so

that it can be put on the back burner again. Well, let me say to the Minister of

Health: That is not good enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: The minister says that the benefits of

mammography screening are not completely known, are not completely clear. The

evidence did not indicate any worthwhile benefit for women under fifty years of

age, unless there was a family history of breast cancer. Now, that view, let me

say to the minister, is not widely held in the scientific community. It is not

widely held at all, Mr. Speaker. A few nights ago everyone in the Province saw

and heard, in absolute disbelief, the minister's comments which were to the

effect that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about because

mammography is not a reliable means to detect breast cancer.

Now, doesn't the minister know that his view is rejected

completely by the people in the scientific community, by specialists in the

cancer detection and treatment field? Doesn't he realize that his view is

completely rejected by these people? Doesn't he realize that the lives of

thousands of women, every single year all across Canada, are saved through early

detection, through mammography? Is the minister aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and

doesn't he know that in the field of breast cancer specialists have long

advocated that a screening program for all women, and especially those in the

high risk area, should be put in place immediately?

Now, a few nights ago the minister saw a lady whose father

had died of cancer, whose mother had breast cancer and whose sister had died

just months ago of breast cancer. She is in a high risk category. Let me say to

the minister she is on a waiting list for about a three or four-month period.

Now, how does the minister explain that? Shouldn't he at least ensure -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: Shouldn't he at least ensure, Mr. Speaker, if

he is going to put a study in place, that the people who are currently waiting

for mammography testing and screening in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Did the hon. member have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

Does the hon. member have leave? I have to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pretty well finished up

anyway. I would say to the minister, if he wants to -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all I was going to say is, Your

Honour clearly made a ruling and my learned friend over there was proceeding,

inadvertently no doubt, to defy it. We gave him leave to finish the statement

and then he kept on going. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is surely pushing the rules

beyond any rational bounds.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the

Minister of Health open the day's session with a statement with respect to

mammography, because for months now the Opposition, as far back as last Spring

have been raising questions consistently in this Legislature about the growing

deficiencies that exist in our health care system, such as the shortage of

specialists, such as the long life-threatening waiting periods for those with

heart surgery, the mammography problems that we have just had a discussion

about, and many other problems.

I want to ask the Premier, is he aware that the Newfoundland

Cancer Clinic, which normally has five Oncologists, I think they are called or

cancer specialists on staff, has been operating now for nearly a year since last

December at least, with just three cancer specialists, all of whom are

radiologists and that we have in fact lost our only specialist in chemotherapy,

and I want to ask him very directly, is he aware of any other critical problems

that exist in the care of cancer, for patients of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that we have major

problems in a number of health care areas in terms of the availability of an

acceptable number of specialists. We could only wish that we could afford more,

or, we could attract those whom we can afford in some cases where we have

difficulty attracting people, so I know that in the cancer field as well as

others, there are some difficulties from time to time. Occasionally the numbers

will be up to the number required and occasionally, as these people move around

from place to place, there may be a period when there is a gap of one or two or

more, and there may be as much as 20 or 30 or 50 per cent of the specialized

staff that is needed. Those things do occur from time to time. They have also

occurred from time to time over the last twenty years as well, and I have no

doubt that the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that as well so this is

nothing unusual. It does occasionally occur from time to time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier, is not aware of anything unusual happening in

this area, let me direct my supplementary question to the minister. Can the

Minister of Health first of all tell us why we have not replaced the doctors who

left a year ago and is he aware of any critical problems that exist in services

to cancer patients in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister just advised me that the

director of the clinic -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - has made him aware of the circumstances,

and also made him aware that he has a couple of people presently under

consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: One is about to come soon and one shortly

after.

PREMIER WELLS: One is about to come soon and one is about

to come shortly after, so the Leader of the Opposition need not be trying to cry

'wolf' again. These are things that do occasionally occur and the government

today is dealing with them, I have no doubt, with equal or better efficiency

than the former government dealt with them so, this is not unusual, this did not

just suddenly happen since the new minister took office. This is a normal -

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier,

is that so?

Then, is the Premier aware that the outreach clinics that

have been operating in this Province for twenty-one years in Corner Brook, Grand

Falls and Burin, have now been shut down for the last two months as a result of

the incompetence of this Minister of Health and inaction by the government with

respect to the operation of cancer clinics, does he know that, and does he not

find that to be a bit unusual?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that under

advisement. I have heard no such reports.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister's

answer. Did he say he was not aware?

MR. SPEAKER: He is taking it under advisement.

AN HON. MEMBER: My God.

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister

this. Is he aware that the three remaining specialists to whom I referred in my

opening question, wrote the Executive Director, Dr. Robbins, of the Newfoundland

Cancer Treatment Association, two months ago, September 11th, expressing their

inability to cope safely with the services needed throughout this Province? Is

he aware, in that letter - is he aware of the letter, I guess, is the first

question, which I doubt, but if he is - is he aware in the letter that the

doctors asked the foundation to discontinue the outreach clinics because they

say if the clinics are not closed in those areas that I referred to earlier, the

level of care and the number of patients seen here at the Health Sciences Centre

would suffer a major cutback?

I want to ask him again: Is he aware of this letter? Is he

aware that in fact these clinics have been closed and people in my constituency,

and the others that I referred to, cannot see the specialist now because they

cannot travel out there? And what is he going to do about this enormous problem?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as far as that particular

letter is concerned, I will have to check into it because I have not seen it.

But I did attend the public meeting that was held by the Cancer Treatment

Research Foundation last week, where people were gathered, the board, from all

over the Province. It was a public meeting. The report for the year was

presented, and a number of questions were asked from the floor, including

something about the shortage of specialists. The director answered a person's

questions, what appeared to be quite satisfactorily.

After the meeting I went with one of the questioners and

reviewed the facilities there, and he conveyed to me some of his concerns. I

passed them over to the director and we talked about it there, and these

concerns seemed to be addressed.

Now it would seem very strange to me that these people who

gathered for the meeting of this board, from all over the Province, did not

raise that issue to which the hon. member refers; but I will check into it to

see if there is any substance to it, and will take appropriate action.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say this is absolutely

unbelievable. I have a copy of the letter here that the specialist wrote, and

copied his own deputy minister on just about two months ago. In that letter - I

am asking him: Is he not aware of this again? - in that letter they say - and

this is a very serious charge: Given the manpower deficiencies, and with no

foreseeable solution on the horizon, we are unable to cope safely with the same

quantity and quality of services as before. In other words they are saying: We

have had it. We cannot handle the workload.

I want to ask the minister again: Does he not think this is a

serious enough situation that he should immediately get his deputy minister

over; find out first of all why his deputy minister did not bring this letter to

his attention two months ago. It is a very damning letter, in my view; and will

he give the people of this Province his assurance, as the minister responsible

for the delivery of health care, that there will be no deterioration in the

cancer services provided to people around this Province? Will he give us that

assurance?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is forever

crying that the sky is going to fall.

I visited, in the past couple of months, every hospital in

this Province - every single hospital - including the ones in Grand Falls and

Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Including the ones in Grand Falls and Corner

Brook, and all the other hospitals -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: - and I spoke with the Administrator of

every hospital; with the Chairman of the Board of virtually every hospital, and

with the chief medical person there, and these concerns were not raised to me

personally. So if they were a matter of concern - and we asked them: What are

your concerns? Is there something I should know about, as minister? That is why

I am here. They took me around the hospital, and we sat down and talked for half

an hour, or an hour, or two hours, and these concerns were not raised. Either

they have already been addressed - I do not know - but I will certainly check

out that letter; but I believe the hon. member is making his usual activity of

pretending that the sky is going to fall in tomorrow morning.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the reason for

the minister's type of defence, because he has no answer to the question. The

problem is, it is not me who is crying. It is the three remaining specialists

who work in the cancer clinic here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the

ones who are crying, and they cried in writing over two months ago, or nearly

two months ago, to the minister, through his own deputy minister. Now I will

wait to see what he gets in terms of a response to these allegations by the

doctors - not by the opposition - I am raising them. I will send a copy of the

letter over to the minister so he can have a look at it for himself.

Let me ask him another related question: Can be confirm that

last year - I am not quite sure how long ago, but nearly a year ago now - the

government hired three experts from outside this Province to do an external

review of the cancer clinic operations. Can he confirm that? In fact they have

had the report. Also can he confirm they have had the report in their hands now

for some six months since last April, and will the minister table that report in

the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: I will take that under advisement too, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: My final supplementary.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Just one more on the issue. Perhaps the

minister can be excused for not having had a chance to look at the report in six

months. I don't know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: But surely he would have had a briefing from

his deputy minister, so I would like to ask him this, Mr. Speaker: can the

minister confirm that this external review, this report done for his department,

has told government and his department that the cancer clinic operations in this

province in fact need ten oncologists, cancer specialist, five radiologists and

five chemotherapy specialists? Far more than we have now. Can he confirm that?

Is he aware of that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will check into

that report, have a look at it and see what it says, and then I will give an

appropriate answer when I have that done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health as

well. I had a visit today from Mr. Jim Bailey of Deer Lake who checked himself

out of Western Memorial Hospital in a last desperate attempt to draw attention

to his plight, and in a last desperate attempt, he says, to save his own life.

Now he is a candidate for a double lung and heart transplant. He is here today

in the gallery. After speaking with him for about twenty minutes I am convinced

he desperately needs the minister's help and the minister's intervention.

He cannot get the surgery done here in Canada, but he has

been accepted to have it done at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in

Philadelphia. He has been a candidate there for three years for a double lung

and heart transplant. Now since he cannot get the surgery done here in this

country, will the minister intervene with MCP to cover the cost for Mr. Bailey

to have that surgery done in Philadelphia?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon.

member for raising this point. I wish he would convey that information to me and

we will take it under advisement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Meet with the man.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: I thank the minister for that, and I am sure I

don't need to impress upon him the urgency of this particular situation that Mr.

Bailey is undergoing. Five years ago, Mr. Bailey needed a double lung

transplant, not a double lung and heart transplant, five years ago he needed a

double lung transplant. His condition has now deteriorated to the point where he

needs a double lung and a heart transplant. He has tried everything over the

last three year period to help himself. Everything that can be humanly done he

has done over the last three year period to try and help himself.

Now if there is further delay in it, his health is going to

continue to deteriorate, and it will remove any hope that he has of ever getting

that surgery done. Will the minister - let me ask him today - meet personally

with Mr. Bailey today so that the minister can be made more fully aware of the

situation, and that he can become more fully informed of the situation and the

unbelievable difficulty that Mr. Bailey has had over the last three year period

in trying to get attention to this matter? Will he meet with him today?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will take this under

advisement and see what happens as far as that -

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

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

Will the hon. Member for Fogo yield to the Member for Harbour Main?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister is

fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. I mean this man has checked

himself out of Western Memorial Hospital. He has travelled here to St. John's at

considerable expense to himself, and a great deal of inconvenience to himself,

to see the Minister of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He knows the rules.

MR. DOYLE: Now the man has been shoved from pillar to

post over the last three year period. Now will the minister meet with him today?

He is here in the gallery. All he is asking for is five minutes. Will you meet

with him?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Simple question!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, no matter how much he shouts it

doesn't make any more sense then when he speaks softly. We have a procedure in

place for dealing with cases in the Province. This has not been brought to my

attention -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is now!

DR. KITCHEN: - before, and I find it very strange that it

has not been. So what I would like to do is to check it out, and then, if

necessary, make an appointment at a convenient time for Mr. - whoever it is - to

see him. But I have no intention of discussing individual cases in this House of

Assembly!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognised the hon. Member for Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr., Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the -

MR. SIMMS: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. WARREN: Shameful.

MR. DOYLE: Why the hell would he come and see us?

(Inaudible) Department of Health.

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear! Right on, Norm.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations. The minister is

obviously aware that the latest Stats Canada information for October shows that

the adjusted UI rate in this Province increased from 19.2 per cent to 21.6 per

cent from September to October. Even more alarming is that the rate from October

1991 to October 1992 has increased to 21.6 per cent from 17.8 per cent, for a

nearly 4 per cent increase. Don't these figures point out to the minister the

total inadequacy of his employment programs? How does he propose to change this

most disturbing trend for this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I appreciate

the question, because it provides an opportunity to point out that these

numbers, while they are important and meaningful, don't point out anything at

all as close to what the hon. member opposite would propose.

This is one of several indicators that make all of us aware

of what's happening with the labour market and the forces that operate in the

Province at a particular time. The analysis of the numbers that we've had

conducted since they were released last week indicate clearly that at this point

in time, while there are some large numbers here that some people might look at

as startling, there are clear explanations for them, in the sense that some

statistical analysis of what's happening with the cod moratorium and people

involved in the fishery, in that particular sector, are now finding their way

into these figures. Also, that at this point in time, and any time in this year,

there is always a factor with the youth in the Province in terms of students

returning to school. It sometimes takes a month or so for them to show up in the

statistics as well.

I should point out as well to the hon. member opposite that

these particular numbers show nothing very different than what happened the last

time that there was a recession in the country and in the Province ten years

ago, in 1981 and 1982. That in fact these numbers are not by any means any worse

than they were at that time when circumstances were significantly different. So

it's not an indication or a condemnation of anything. It's just another piece of

information that allows us to verify that there are problems and that we're

still looking at them.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, what a pile of garbage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Let me ask the minister this then. For youth,

Mr. Speaker, aged between fifteen to twenty-four, it has increased from 27 per

cent to 30.4 per cent. Furthermore, the minister's own job creation program that

he announced a few weeks ago eliminates most of them because of the criteria

that he put in: when all other factors are considered, the head of the family

will obtain the job.

There was nothing for the people aged between fifteen and

twenty-four. Social agencies in this problem also failed to address their

concerns. What does the minister intend to do to help that age group, from

fifteen to twenty-four? Because he didn't do it in his last strategy.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Again I'm

always puzzled that once a month when the House is open the hon. member stands

up and tries to point out that these figures mean something, or mean something

else, when in fact they don't.

We all recognise, and we've never tried to disguise the fact,

that there is a fairly serious problem in the Province and in the country, and

it has been here for a couple of years with us now. We've indicated that through

our interventions we have designated help targeted at certain people. The young

people in this particular category that he references in this question, were not

the prime beneficiaries of the emergency employment response program but,

contrary to what member's opposite might believe, we never, ever suggested it

was. We didn't say that this was an initiative for young people. There are other

strategies that try to deal with that, on an ongoing basis, in the

Canada/Newfoundland Youth Strategy and so on, that have had successes throughout

the year. We have a problem. We take these numbers seriously because they are

one of a number of indicators that show us what is happening in the labour

market at the present time, but it doesn't mean that the thing is as disastrous

as the member opposite would like to try and indicate. In effect, we are dealing

with it and we will continue to do so.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is skating around

every question.

Let me ask him this, then: In October of 1991 there were

199,000 people employed in this Province. In October of this year there were

185,000, a total job loss of 14,000 that doesn't include all those that have

been affected by the northern cod moratorium because they are not included in

the figures. Now, Mr. Speaker, that means a 7 per cent decline in the number of

jobs in this Province. How does the minister account for such a huge job loss

this past year, when we take out those that have been displaced from the

fishery, because they are not included in these figures?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Again it gives me an opportunity to point out to the member

opposite that he should check his research and get his people to find out

exactly what is happening, because the information that we have available to us,

as the government, is that, in fact, where we are dealing with these numbers

they do include a significant number of people who are involved in the fishery

and many of them in the moratorium area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if I could continue on with the

answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I explained to the public before, when the

first numbers were released following the introduction of the cod moratorium

package, that it was hopeful at that time that those numbers would have no

impact one way or the other. But, as has been pointed out and demonstrated in

just a week in this Legislature, there are whole communities even in the

moratorium area that are not taken care of in any way, shape or form under the

moratorium payments. Those people continue to show up in the employment and

unemployment statistics as recorded by Stats Canada as do people in the fishery

in the rest of the Province.

The main factor, in terms of the numbers that were referred

to in the initial question, were 8000 people in the manufacturing sector which,

in this Province, is almost entirely driven, or very largely driven, by the

fishing industry. So the numbers are impacted very strongly by what is happening

in the fishery and there are designations that are not yet clear, on a

statistical basis, of how many people in the moratorium area will or will not

impact these figures.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets on his

feet again perhaps he will tell us how many of the people who are receiving

northern cod moratorium benefits are also included in these stats? If his

research is so good, what is the real number?

Let me ask the minister this, then: CMHC's forecast for the

next year indicates that housing starts in this Province will be down

significantly, as indeed they might be across the country. Mr. Speaker, that is

one of the larger employers in this Province. Can the minister tell us what

impact the declining housing starts will have on job losses in Newfoundland for

the coming season, and how many projected job losses will occur? We have already

had twenty-seven in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? How many job losses will

occur as a result of the decline in the housing industry?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it would be irresponsible for all of us to try to

deal with the hypothesis he puts forward as to whether or not something is going

to happen in the next year. We have some indications to us as to whether or not

those things may or may not occur, and we will keep monitoring that as we go. We

certainly would not put in place any kind of a plan right now, predicated on the

fact that one group of people might suggest that a certain thing is going to

happen in the economy. As everyone in this House would know, all hon. members

here would know, that that very same prediction by the same group of people

might change next week, next month, the day after and so on. We deal with that

information as we get it and as it is firm for us to deal with, and we make our

planning on that basis.

I would like to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, while I am

standing, in terms of

preamble and leading into this question, talking about the

number of people who are receiving northern cod benefits that are in these

statistics, that is not what I said. I said there are a lot of people in the

area that is covered by the moratorium who are not receiving compensation, they

are not eligible, and these people are still involved in the employment and

unemployment statistics at this point in time, continue to be so, and there are

also a number of people there who will have eligibility after their unemployment

expires. These people are still in the statistics. The hon. member opposite

knows that and it is improper for him to try and mislead people to think

otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a district that has a significant

logging population. As my friend from Humber Valley pointed out in the House

last week, there are a number of small contractors who have been dealing over

the years with the Price mill in Stephenville who found that their wood is no

longer welcome. Indeed we have even had correspondence from the Baie Verte area

to this effect as well.

We are told that wood is being imported from Prince Edward

Island to be used at that mill while our loggers are going idle. I am wondering

if the minister is aware of this, and what his views are on it?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware and have been

aware for some time that Abitibi-Price have imported 12,000 metres of wood from

Prince Edward Island. That wood has now arrived in the Province - or at least

the last shipment would have arrived some time in the past few days. Yes, they

have indeed imported 12,000 metres of wood from Prince Edward Island.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, a

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the pieces of correspondence we have had on this

matter in our office has indicated to us that there is a government subsidy

involved in this importation of wood. Would the minister care to indicate if the

present provincial government is involved in this subsidy?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, I can categorically inform

the member that there is no government subsidy involved in this particular

12,000 metres of wood coming from Prince Edward Island.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

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

Paper companies came to this Island at the turn of this

century based on what you might call a socioeconomic contract, I guess, a

long-term supply of wood in exchange for jobs in the paper industry.

If we are going to continue to have them tie up a supply of

wood, I would ask the minister, while at the same time not providing the jobs to

Newfoundlanders, would the minister not think that the socioeconomic contract

that was entered into some decades ago is breaking down, and should that not be

a matter of concern to the government?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member

that the government, is very concerned about the fact that 12,000 metres of wood

have been imported into Newfoundland. I suppose we would be concerned in normal

times. If all the loggers in Newfoundland were working, or if all the private

operators could sell all their wood to the companies, we would probably be

concerned then. We have more reason to be concerned on the timing, when things

are not good in the industry; when, as the hon. member said, there are loggers

displaced; when private operators cannot sell their wood.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of what has happened. We are

concerned, and I might tell the hon. member that those concerns have been

expressed to the companies, and Abitibi-Price is very well aware of our concern.

They are aware of the reasons for the concern; and I feel fairly confident that

the concerns expressed by me, on behalf of this government, will cause

Abitibi-Price to consider the concerns before they make another decision like

that.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Twelve thousand metres is a long road.

Let me ask the Minister of Social Services a question

regarding the escape of three boys who were members of close custody in

Whitbourne. It is my understanding that these three individuals were taken to a

mall by one custodial worker. Can I ask the minister why there was only one

person responsible for three people going to a mall, and was it a result of

government cutbacks that there was only one person present?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the result of

government cutbacks. I understand that these three youths were in St. John's for

educational purposes, and at the time that they left the custody of the

individual you spoke of they were, in fact, in a mall in the western part of St.

John's. As of now they have not been apprehended.

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

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister: Is he

concerned about the fact that three people who were placed in the custody of the

department for which he is responsible are now at large? Two of these boys are

sixteen years of age.

We have situations right now where we are dealing with

sub-zero temperatures. People are out. We do not know whether they are in or if

they are outside, or what is happening, and there has been tragedy in this

Province before. So I ask the minister: Will he put in place the necessary

people to look after this group of individuals; and can he tell this House how

many people are involved right now in the search for these three individuals in

the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the member the

exact number of people who are involved in trying to find these individuals. I

can say that two of the three have homes in St. John's, are from the St. John's

area. We are confident that they will be taken back into our care very soon. I

appreciate his concern about the time of the year. I don't think, however, that

it's a great concern. It is in the St. John's area. I think that unlike being

away from custody, if you like, in a country atmosphere away from the urban

area, such as St. John's, might be a little different if in fact they didn't

have any housing nearby. But as I mentioned, two have homes here in the city.

We're quite confident they will be back in custody very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to submit

the report of the Select Committee on changing the name of the Province. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take a minute to thank the members of the committee,

including the MHA for Torngat Mountains, the Vice-Chair; the Member for Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir, the Member for Carbonear; the Member for St. John's South; the

Member for Burin - Placentia West and the Member for Menihek.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to also take the opportunity

to thank the witnesses who came forward and gave their sincere and thorough

presentations to the committee. I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, by indicating to

the House and to the Province that the committee makes an unanimous

recommendation that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

amendment to change the name of the Province, from the Province of Newfoundland

to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Copies to all the members.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act", as well, Mr. Speaker,

another bill entitled, "An Act To Abolish Certain Fees", and finally, Mr.

Speaker, a bill entitled, "

An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital

Tax Act."

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

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

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

Residential Tenancies Act."

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Order 1, Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

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

Committee of the Whole

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

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the

public service for the financial year ending March 31, l992, the sum of

$18,955,300."

On motion, Bill No. 26, carried.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report some

considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verte.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has

considered the matters to it referred, has directed me to report that it has

adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give

effect to same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

RESOLUTION

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the

public service for the financial year ending the March 31, 1992, the sum of

$18,955,300.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty

Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1992 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service," (Bill No. 26), read a first, second and third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the order paper.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 2, Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No. 13).

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill provides for

a couple of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, the principal amendment being

the amendment found in Clause 1 of the bill, which would require medical

practitioners and optometrists to report to the registrar of Motor Vehicles

conditions which, in their opinion, would make it dangerous for their patients

to operate a motor vehicle. That is the principal change introduced by this

particular amendment, the reporting of the information. The information that is

reported is to be held confidential except for failure to comply with this

particular clause.

Clause 2 of the bill provides for increased penalties for the

operator of a commercial vehicle who refuses to report to the weigh scales.

Also, it provides that where an operator of a commercial vehicle refuses to

report to the weigh scales for weighing that the inspector then can direct the

vehicle to be removed to a place of safety and remain there until such time as

conditions are met.

So, basically, those are the three amendments the bill seeks

to have introduced into The Highway Traffic Act. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will

sit down and await any questions there are on this bill.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to

rise in my place today, because I believe this is the first piece of major

legislation that has been brought before the House since the House opened.

I was looking at the other one which is due to come in from

the hon. minister. I have only one problem with the one that the minister

brought in today and that is designating the authority to an inspector. How much

of a designation are we talking about?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I want to remind the hon. Member for St.

John's South that I know exactly what I am talking about. What does that give

that inspector? What authority does it give him? I know you are saying that,

okay, if the truck is not up to standard that he has a right to detain that

vehicle. But now, if the driver refuses to get on the scales, he certainly

hasn't got the authority of a peace officer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: You can't hear your ears.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member asking for order?

Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: You know, when you talk about the inspector,

what authority does this give the inspector? Because right now, Mr. Speaker, in

Section 6 that is exactly what is happening. I mean, if you go to the weigh

scales and there is a problem as far as the inspector is concerned, well, the

inspector then has a right to say to you, `Leave your vehicle where she is.' So

I wonder what is the difference? What other authority does he have? As far as

the rest of it is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is an increase in the fines and, I

suppose, that acts as a deterrent.

Clause 1 of the bill will require medical practitioners and

optometrists to report to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles a condition of their

patient. Mr. Speaker, we have many people, I think, driving who have problems as

it pertains to health, especially eyes and whatever. I think that is a good

idea. I think that will be well received by the majority of the population. I

think it is a good idea and I don't see any problems with it.

The other parts of the amendment - well, the confidentiality

to the Registrar, I think it is perhaps a foregone conclusion, that that is in

effect right now. Perhaps it was not laid down in the Traffic Act before.

I would like for the minister to explain Clause 2: "The

amendment would also provide that an inspector appointed under the Act would be

empowered to order a driver of a commercial vehicle who fails to comply with

section 175 to drive to a place of safety selected by the inspector." To my

knowledge, that is, indeed, happening now. So why the amendment if that is

happening at the present time?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Member for St. John's South has no

knowledge of it whatsoever. Yes, it is happening right now and, Yours Truly, was

at that scales for a reason only two weeks ago. So you don't know what you are

talking about. Don't go nodding your head and interrupting when you don't know

what you are talking about. I would like for the hon. minister to -

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of concerns with

this.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can the Member for St. John's

South restrain himself. He is like a crackie on a chain.

I have a couple of questions here that I would like to

address to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding this

piece of legislation, particularly, Mr. Speaker, as it deals with the

responsibilities that are now being placed upon the medical practitioners, as

well as the optometrists, who will be responsible for reporting the files,

basically, on people as they relate to any illness they may have that may be

deemed to interfere with their - Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to speak but when

you cannot make eye contact with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, it makes it that much more difficult.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking for order and ought to be afforded

that order - not ought to be, he must be.

MR. TOBIN: On that issue, I would say to the -

MR. GOVER: (Inaudible). I just ask him if he could repeat

it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

is asking for the space to speak. I am not sure if the Member for Burin -

Placentia West has allowed him; although I don't know whether he - he has taken

his position.

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I only want the indulgence

because I would like the member to repeat the question. I didn't get all the

question that he was asking and I would like to provide him with the answer, if

possible.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. What I am

saying is that I understand from reading this, it is going to be made compulsory

that the medical doctors, practitioners and optometrists would have a

responsibility to report to Motor Registration the clinical condition of a

person sixteen years of age or older who may have some medical reasons why he

should not have a license. It also says this would provide that the information,

which is confidential to the registrar, may not be used in a trial except to

prove compliance with reporting the requirement.

I would just like to ask the minister how the government or

the registrar will ensure the confidentiality of a person's medical file that is

going to be brought before them, because what we have right now, as I understand

it, is a situation where every doctor in this Province will have a

responsibility to report to the registrar or Motor Registration the medical

evidence of any individual whom he has seen, who applies for a driver's license

or has a driver's licence whose illness may for some reason prevent him from

having a license or for some reason should be on file. I am not objecting to

that. My concern is, How does the registrar assure that that information will be

kept confidential? I think that is very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is.

MR. TOBIN: That causes me some concern.

Another area that I have asked the minister about as it comes

up in this is the reporting to the weigh scales. It is my understanding that all

trucks now are supposed to stop at the weigh scales, and there is a penalty in

place for those who decide not to stop at the weigh scales. So I am asking the

minister, is he going to try to enforce that now? Will he enforce the stopping

of commercial vehicles at the weigh scales more than it has been enforced? If it

is being enforced now, obviously there would be no problem with it. I will also

ask the minister if he has any plans to reopen any of the weigh scales that are

presently closed down throughout the Province?

But my major concern is the confidentiality of the medical

reports containing information on individuals in this Province that are just

going to be picked up and passed on to Motor Registration division. We have

seen, particularly in the past two years, medical information, MCP, thrown out

in garbage bins. It has caused concern for people, and I am just wondering - if

the Government House Leader doesn't like it, you know - my question is to the

Minister of Transportation. I know that he will address it when he gets up to

speak.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to raise

some concerns about clause one of this bill, the clause just addressed by my

colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West. As my colleague pointed out,

this clause would impose on medical practitioners and optometrists a duty to

report to the Director of Motor Vehicles the name of any patient thought to be

unfit to operate a motor vehicle. That wording is 'A medical practitioner shall

report to the registrar the name, address, date of birth and clinical condition

of a person 16 years of age or older attending the practitioner for medical

services who, in the opinion of the practitioner, is suffering from a condition

that may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle.'

Mr. Speaker, this represents a significant violation of

doctor/patient confidentiality. I would like to know whether the government has

sought and received the advice of its own Human Rights Commission on this

provision?

I, personally, think that it is in the public interest to

keep off the roads, or to prevent from operating motor vehicles, individuals who

are not fit to operate motor vehicles; but it is my opinion that this casts far

too big a net. We have now, as I understand it, a requirement for senior

citizens to get medicals to renew their driver's licences, and I think that is

reasonable; but, in my opinion, this is excessive because it is an unwarranted

infringement of the rights of patients, and I am afraid it may have the effect

of discouraging people from getting checkups from their doctors, or getting eye

examinations.

Mr. Speaker, I would propose to the government that they look

for alternatives. If there is any reason to believe that people are operating

motor vehicles who cannot see properly, or who are otherwise unfit to drive

motor vehicles, are there not alternatives to keep these people off the road?

I would like to know if there is any precedent for this? Do

any other Provinces of Canada or other jurisdictions impose this kind of duty on

medical practitioners? What is the rationale for this violation of the

doctor/patient confidentiality?

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to avail of the opportunity

of debating this bill to raise some concerns about the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation efforts to keep off the highways vehicles with

excessive loads.

My colleague, the Member for Humber Valley, in debate on the

Supplementary Supply Bill last week, raised the problems experienced by truckers

hauling logs to the paper mills, of being ticketed and fined for violating the

existing law which bases loads on weight rather than volume.

As my colleague pointed out, truckers, on taking on loads of

logs in the woods, have no means of weighing the load. If the logs are old and

dry, a greater volume may be accommodated within the present legal limit. If,

however, the logs are newer and greener, they weight more. Truckers, with the

best intention of obeying the law, are finding themselves in violation of the

limit, and are having their viability as businesspeople threatened because of

tickets and fines.

Now, a long time ago, loggers proposed to the government the

alternative of having their loads measured by volume instead of weight, by a

type of measurement which would enable them, on taking their loads in the woods,

to determine clearly whether or not they are in compliance with the law. I would

like to ask the minister if he has now in place the volume method of evaluating

loads of logs, in the interest of the viability of truckers and loggers in this

Province?

In summation, Mr. Speaker, I am expressing my objections, in

principle, to clause 1 of this bill, because it represents an unwarranted and

excessive infringement of doctor/patient confidentiality. In the case of the

provisions of the Act under review dealing with load limits for the highways, I

am asking if the minister and the government at long last have responded to the

very legitimate request of truckers and loggers to have the volume method of

assessing loads of logs in place.

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

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

Attorney General.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to respond to one or two of the comments made by

members opposite. I don't know if my friend from Kilbride was going to raise the

points that I am going to address. If so, my friend and colleague, the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation will deal with them.

My colleague, Mr. Speaker, can deal with some of the issues

raised, he can deal with all of them, for that matter, but he can deal with some

of them even more effectively than can I. The question of practice in other

provinces, the question of alternatives to this suggested measure and the

ticketing situation are matters which my colleague will address, but I would

like to say a word or two, if I might, Sir, to try to allay the concerns of

members opposite about the confidentiality situation. I take their concerns as

having been put forward genuinely and I shall respond to them in that way. I am

as conscious, I hope, as any member of the House, of the need to maintain

doctor/patient relationship and of the need for a proper measure of

confidentiality in a professional relationship. Certainly, the doctor/patient

relationship is one of the highest relationships in that sense.

Mr. Speaker, the matter is really very straightforward, I

suggest. It is beyond argument, or at least it is beyond rational argument, that

there are conditions, medical conditions, physical conditions, physiological

conditions, that would prevent a person from being able to operate a motor

vehicle with safety to him or herself and with safety to the other users of the

road or, for that matter, I guess, the passengers in that person's vehicle. Now,

I don't attempt to go through them all. That is not for me, and the bill makes

no attempt to do that, quite properly in my judgement. But, for example, one

could have a problem with one's eyes and if it is not treated or properly

addressed, he shouldn't be driving a motor vehicle. I couldn't drive one

properly without my glasses or maybe those opposite would say -

MR. TOBIN: Even with the glasses.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. colleague from Burin - Placentia

West just can't resist a line.

AN HON. MEMBER: One of your colleagues said it.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: One of your colleague said that, too.

MR. ROBERTS: One of my colleagues said that, too. The

difference is my colleague has driven with me on occasion and the hon. gentleman

opposite has not. So, as always, my colleague speaks from knowledge, unlike the

hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend from Burin - Placentia West

thinks that was an accident. My hon. friend should remember the famous

distinction between a catastrophe and a disaster. Let me put it to him this way:

If the hon. gentleman were to run off the road while driving his vehicle that

would be a disaster. If somebody were to bring him back on, that would be a

catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the bill because there is -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend, the Leader of the

Opposition, has forgotten that when he was Speaker, and that was nearly twenty

years ago, the first chance he had to get into the House - he did his very best

to get in here before then but he had to wait for Mr. John Lundrigan to throw

himself, as it were metaphorically, on his sword. I should say to my hon. friend

now that he should know that the recruiters for his party in -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is rubbish.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it was rubbish. I would say that my

hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SIMMS: Relevance.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is as relevant as the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, let me come back, Sir, to the bill. I am trying to deal

with a point which I suggest my friends opposite have raised in a serious

fashion and I am prepared to try to address it on that basis. But if they want

to engage in ragamatag, I am prepared to deal with them on that basis. I have

dealt with better than anyone opposite on that basis. They can't hold a candle

to the people who were in this House when first I came here in the 'sixties.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend seems worried that they came

in the 'sixties. Unlike him I matured at a relatively early age and so got into

the House at an early age.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the first point is that it's beyond

argument that there are certain conditions that justify the suggestion that a

person ought not to be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. Driving a motor

vehicle, Sir, in this Province or elsewhere in this country is not a right, it's

a privilege. It's a matter that one has because the Legislature authorises

people to drive if they follow procedures. The reason for that is so

straightforward and obvious that it doesn't need, surely, any elaboration. If

you drive a motor vehicle, Sir, you're putting at risk not only yourself and the

passengers but anybody else on the road. So number one, there is a condition, or

there is a situation.

Number two, the person best suited in the first instance to

decide whether any particular individual has a medical problem that would

prevent him or her from operating a motor vehicle safely is surely the doctor to

whom that person goes for advice and for guidance.

Now, Sir, that's what leads us to the situation where we ask

the House for authority to oblige a medical practitioner to report certain

information to the registrar. Now that's the first point made by hon. members

opposite. If the person is suffering from a condition, in the opinion of the

practitioner, that would make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor

vehicle, he or she, the practitioner, must report that to the Registrar of Motor

Vehicles. Point one.

Point two. We have provided for proper protection for

doctors. No action may be brought against a doctor for reporting that

information to the registrar, nor should an action be maintained against a

doctor. Should there be the ability to maintain it, there should not be the

ability to maintain it.

Point three. The report of the doctor for the purpose of

subsection (1) is privileged, which means legally privileged. It means it may

not be got at in court, it may not be subpoenaed, it may not be brought forward

in a court of law for any other purpose. That's the answer to the

confidentiality concern raised by the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West, in

the legal sense. Now there is also a practical concern. I'll let my colleague

address that. But there is all sorts of information in the government that's

confidential. The social services files, the medicare files - there are hundreds

and hundreds of files that are being kept confidential. The Justice Department

has, I suppose, thousands of them up there.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) MCP files in the garbage dumpster

(Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. I'm aware of it. I've read the reports

and I know what happened. I think my hon. friend will agree that that was not

only an unique situation, it wasn't a breakdown in the procedures, it was a

breakdown in the application of procedures. People were asked to do certain

things with certain files. I think my friend for the Strait of Belle Isle, who

was then the Minister of Health, made quite a long statement in the House, as I

recollect it, last Spring dealing with that. You can design procedures, you can

put them in place, but unless people follow them it's very hard to guarantee the

result. That was a breakdown of procedures. Was that the one where the doctor

was checking through the garbage bags on Christmas Eve? That was that one.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I've heard tell of tough times.

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't hear that one. But the incident

with MCP and the garbage bags.... Also, one of the points on that was, the

doctor had that information for two or three weeks, as I recollect it, and

didn't see fit to go to MCP or to the medical board, or to the minister or

anybody else. He just kept it to himself for two or three weeks and then went to

the press. Nothing wrong with that. But it rather does lead one to question

exactly what the doctor was after. Whether he was concerned with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Looking for his Christmas dinner. What is

important is that there is confidential information held by the government, all

sorts of it in all sorts of departments. We put in place what we believe to be

adequate measures. They have to be implemented and followed before they'll work.

We try to do what we can to make people do what they should do in following

these procedures. If it turns out the procedures need to be improved, then

obviously we're open to changing and correcting them. As far as I know, the

information in the Motor Vehicle Registry is adequately protected. Again, my

colleague can address that in more detail.

I'm speaking to the legal point. It is legally privileged.

One may not go to court and subpoena this information. Say in an action arising

out of an accident for damages for personal injuries, you could not go in and

subpoena the Registrar to bring in and say - well now let's say the hon. member

was in an accident and somebody was alleging: well he ought to have known he

should not have been driving. One could not go and subpoena the Registrar and

tell him to bring in a report that went in from the doctor. Nor, for that

matter, could you subpoena the doctor, in my understanding. I think that is one

of the points the hon. gentleman was raising, and I want to be able to assure

him on that position.

Mr. Speaker, that leaves only the issue raised by my friend

from Humber East, whether it was right and proper to require the doctor to do

this; it is, in a sense, a breach of doctor/patient confidentiality.

My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that here, as in so many

cases, we have competing rights. There is an example I would like to use which I

think is a good one, so I will use it again, that the right to free speech which

we all enjoy as part of our ancient heritage and now protected by the Charter,

does not give one the right to cry 'fire' falsely in a crowded theatre. Every

right must be balanced against competing rights.

Here we have two rights. We have the right of an individual

to know that when he or she goes to see a doctor, the doctor will keep this

information private and secret, and not go passing it around at cocktail

parties, or in the press or anywhere; but secondly we have another right, and

that is the right of the person using the road to a reasonable degree of

assurance that other people using the road are medically capable of operating

the motor vehicles.

Medical information is routinely and properly made available

on this basis through hospitals and what have you, and I do not see anything

unusual or wrong or different in this.

What would follow is, a report would come in to the Registrar

who would then take the appropriate action - presumably go back to the

individual and say: Look, we understand you are having some trouble, say with

your eyes; you have not taken adequate measures, and what is the situation?

I do not think that is a wrong principle. Indeed I would go

so far as to say it is a very proper principle because unless we have this

information there is no way in which the Registrar can know that people have

these problems. Doctors cannot volunteer the information; that would be

improper. The Legislature may require it.

My friend, I think, from Burin - Placentia West, is -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) volunteer this information?

MR. ROBERTS: They should not volunteer the information.

This obliges them to do it. There is a big difference from a doctor on his or

her own volition ringing up the Registrar and saying: I think you should know

that Tom Jones only has one and a half eyes and they are going to fail on him.

There is a big difference from that on one hand, and on the other hand the

doctor saying: I have an obligation on me by statute.

We have many of these. We spoke the other day about the Child

Welfare Act, and we will be bringing in an amendment to make that even more

crystal clear - that any person in this Province who has knowledge that a child

is being abused mentally or physically, must report that to the authorities.

That even overrides solicitor/client privilege.

There are public duties; there are public rights, and you

have to balance one against the other. Well we have tried to strike a balance

here by requiring the doctor to report the information to the Registrar and then

by providing it, it shall be kept privileged, private, confidential and secret.

Mr. Speaker, we think this is a reasonable amendment, and we

put it forward in that spirit. I hope that hon. members opposite will, upon

reflection, concur and will agree to support the Bill when it is called for

second reading.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

After just listening to the Minister of Justice, I do have a

question that I want to ask, in particular to the Minister of Transportation, on

this particular section.

I think it is fair that the reason behind this particular

section, I would call it the Jeffrey House Bill, because about four years ago a

particular individual from the minister's district, from Naskaupi district, who

was a particular physician, advised motor registration that this particular

individual could not operate a motor vehicle, subsequently, his licence was

suspended. Subsequently, a second physician gave an opinion and the Department

of Transportation still would not reinstate the individual's licence. So the

family took the case the legal route, took it through the court. The court then

advised the Department of Transportation that they had to reinstate his licence.

I would think this Bill originated from members in the

Minister of Transportation's office who was involved with that case four or five

years ago. I would like to suggest that the only danger in that particular piece

of legislation I see is: do we have to take the opinion of just one physician? I

would like to ask the minister, should we not change that piece of legislation

to say the opinion of the petitioner or petitioners. I think there should be

more than just one opinion.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation if a

particular physician says Tom Jones has this problem and he should not have a

driver's licence. Would not the minister then say to Tom Jones for the benefit

of the doubt: Go to another physician or we have a physician that you have to go

to to verify if this is correct because there are going to be cases out there,

and the same thing as lawyers, not everybody is going to be correct. I really

think there should be more than one physician giving the ultimate answer to the

Department of Transportation. That is my only concern with this particular piece

of legislation. I believe it is needed. I sincerely think it is needed. In fact

there are many, many people on our highways in this Province today that if this

piece of legislation was in place would not be operating their vehicles. It is

quite possible, Mr. Speaker, between the fifty-two of us in this Legislature

there could be one of us who should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

It is quite possible. Therefore, the safety of the others is most important.

I want to compliment the minister for bringing in this piece

of legislation, however I think there should be more than one physician's

opinion. They should get the second opinion when deciding the rights of the

individual.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was up previously and I thought that the

legislation was a good piece of legislation and I thought that it was necessary.

I still think along those same lines. As far as confidentiality, if there is

anyone in our society has an impediment or would endanger any other person on

the highways of this Province, then I think that should be considered under

certain circumstances. I think that people on the highway who are not capable of

performing, who are not capable of driving, then I say that this is a soul

searching thing, and I think the doctor, even before this legislation, should

almost have a moral obligation to notify the Registrar of Motor Registration. I

think there is an obligation and you may find people who differ. I certainly

feel that a person's right to confidentiality has to be respected, but I don't

think in this case it is absolute.

Again, I only want to say to the minister that I don't think

that

part in that legislation would be abused. What the hon. Member for Torngat

Mountains said about the second opinion, I am not sure but that might be a good

idea. Perhaps it is necessary to put it in to the amendment. I will leave that

up to the minister, but he does have a point that rather than one doctor or one

physician, perhaps the onus should be on someone to say we can have two people

make a decision on this particular aspect of it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions that have been

raised with respect to this particular Bill I would like to take a few moments

to provide some answers to those questions.

I guess the first thing we have to realise is that driving in

a province is a privilege, it's not a right. Even in this day and age when

automotive transportation is so prevalent there is no right, constitutionally

speaking, to have a driver's licence. This is a privilege granted under certain

conditions by the Province. There is no doubt, as the Opposition and many

speakers have indicated, that the mischief this Bill seeks to correct - the

removal of unsafe drivers from the highway - is a legitimate one. In order to

have reasonably safe highways, those with medical conditions who would operate a

vehicle in a potentially unsafe manner must be removed from the highways for the

safety of all concerned.

One member has indicated that this is an unwarranted

intrusion into the rights of the individual. I'd like to point out that in the

provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, all

these provinces have legislation which require doctors to report medically

impaired drivers. The provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan

have legislation which says a doctor may report a medically impaired driver. In

the Province of Quebec the legislation states that the doctor should.

In all jurisdictions except British Columbia, where there is

a requirement to report medically impaired drivers, legislative protection is

provided to the physician or optometrist for the reporting. As the hon. the

Minister of Justice has indicated, for a physician to report a medically

impaired driver to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles would, under normal

circumstances, be a violation of the privilege that exists. So in order to allow

this reporting to proceed the doctors must be provided with protection for the

requirement to report.

It's evident from the surveys that have been conducted of the

various Canadian jurisdictions that reporting of medically impaired drivers is

the rule and not the exception. This legislation will bring Newfoundland and

Labrador in line with the other jurisdictions in Canada. It wasn't viewed by the

Government of Ontario as an unwarranted intrusion, or the Government of Prince

Edward Island, or the governments of the other Canadian jurisdictions. This is a

reasonable limitation, a reasonable requirement, that those drivers who are

medically impaired, that their physicians be required to report that to the

Registrar of Motor Vehicles. I cannot agree that this is an unwarranted

infringement of individual liberty. Rather, it is a reasonable protection for

those of us who use the highways who are not medically impaired.

The question was raised as to how this Bill came about, and

there was some suggestion that this Bill came about as a result of a particular

case. I would inform the House that this legislation was, to my knowledge, not

the result of a particular case, but in 1983 the Newfoundland Medical

Association requested that the previous administration bring in this type of

legislation. Apparently when the Highway Traffic Act was prepared in 1988 the

previous administration, for whatever reason, wasn't in a position to bring in

this particular legislation. In 1989 the Newfoundland Medical Association again

requested that this legislation be introduced. As a result of the two requests

in 1983 and 1989, and as a result of correcting the mischief that the statute

aims at, we have this piece of legislation here before us.

In

summary then, the legislation is a result of correcting a

serious problem on our highways, and also is as a result of a request from the

Newfoundland Medical Association.

Now, the question was raised that the licence of a particular

driver should not be suspended upon the opinion of one physician. Basically,

under this system, when a physician reports to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles

that his patient has a medical condition which would warrant the suspension of

that driver's licence, the driver is then contacted by the Registrar, and

provided with a form which he can take to any physician, be it his own physician

or another physician for completion and return to the Registrar of Motor

Vehicles. Once that information is received by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles,

before the Registrar will suspend the driver's licence, he will consult with at

least one medical physician and receive his advice. That is one physician in

addition to the physician who examined the patient; and, indeed, the Registrar

has the authority to consult with a medical board composed of more than one

physician if he deems that necessary.

So we have, or we could have, three doctors involved in this

process. First, the doctor reports, secondly the doctor examines the patient and

sends back in the form - that could be the same doctor or a different doctor, so

at this stage there is either one or two doctors involved - then, when the form

comes back to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the Registrar will consult with

at least one other physician and maybe the Medical Board itself, so, at a

minimum there will be two physicians involved before a driver's licence is

suspended and, in fact, several more physicians could be involved in the

decision before the licence is suspended.

Then, if after these reviews, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles

feels that the licence should be suspended, the driver has the right to appeal

to the Driver's Licence Suspension Review Board, so even after these series of

checks and balances, if the driver feels aggrieved, he can appeal to an

independent body, The Driver's Licence Suspension Review Board, for a decision

on his particular case. So I think we can see from the system that is in place,

every effort is made to give a fair hearing to the driver who is reported as

having a medically suspect condition with respect to his driver's licence.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, to the confidentiality of the

information, as all members are aware, there is a requirement for medicals to be

filed for certain drivers in the Province already. The Registrar of Motor

Vehicles handles a great volume of this type of information already, and the

procedures in place have been so adequate that there has not been a leak of this

confidential information. I have also met with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles

to discuss the procedures to be put in place when this legislation comes in

force, and my instructions to him were to ensure that the information he

receives as a result of this reporting requirement are held strictly

confidential. He is not to assume that the existing procedures are satisfactory

even though there has been no leak of confidential information. With this

increased requirement, and with the increased volume of information coming in to

the Registrar, additional procedures will be implemented to ensure that this

information remains strictly confidential.

Mr. Speaker, the question was raised about volume loading

versus weighing of the trucks, in particular, woods trucks on the West Coast.

The government has investigated this concept of volume loading and weight

loading and is prepared to consider putting in place volume loading. In fact,

talks have already begun with the paper companies to see if we can put in place

the system of volume loading versus weight loading. I understand that these

talks are still ongoing between the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, the Department of Forestry and Agriculture and the paper

companies, to determine if in fact, a workable system of volume loading can be

put in place.

But, Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Administration, who did

not put in volume loading, this Administration is prepared to consider it and

has held active talks with the paper companies to put this system in place.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite may say volume loading

may be a long time coming, but they never even took the first step to introduce

it. It was this Administration that has taken the first steps to introduce

volume loading, and thereby, if an effective system can be put in place, provide

some relief to the hard-working truckers of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the

section which requires

the inspector to direct the vehicle to a place of safety off the highway, this

authority is granted by the

section on the bill found on page 5, subsection (7),

which gives the inspector the authority of a peace officer. The inspector needs

the authority of a peace officer to have the vehicle removed from the highway

for noncompliance, for failure to report to the weigh scales. That amendment is

included in this subsection.

So, with the amendment giving the inspector the authority of

a peace officer, that will also give the inspector the authority to have the

truck removed from the highway for noncompliance. In certain situations, that is

a necessary authority, because if a vehicle is stopped on the highway and the

driver refuses to report to the scales, and then decides to park his vehicle on

the highway, I think it is a reasonable requirement that the inspector have the

authority to at least direct that vehicle off the highway to a place of safety

so that traffic can flow freely along the highway while this matter is being

resolved.

I hope I have answered the questions, Mr. Speaker. Thank you

very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 13).

MR. ROBERTS: Order 3, Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Farm

Products Corporation Act". (Bill No. 10).

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

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a fairly

routine piece of legislation, or an amendment, very simple, to "An Act To Amend

The Farm Products Corporation Act." I will read it directly: "The purpose of

this bill is to amend the Farm Products Corporation Act by repealing and

replacing

section 8 of the Act such that the corporation may appoint an auditor

to audit its affairs. At present the Auditor General is responsible for this

duty."

I might point out that this amendment is concurred with by

the Auditor General, as a matter of fact, supported by the Auditor General -

this recommendation that Newfoundland Farm Products be permitted to hire

independent audits.

It may well be, Mr. Speaker, more cost efficient for

Newfoundland Farm Products to use outside auditors than to use the Auditor

General. It may be more efficient. The Auditor General has a fairly heavy

workload and has been recommending that agencies such as Newfoundland Farm

Products, or other agencies that she is responsible for auditing, would, indeed,

use outside auditors. Now, the Auditor General retains the right, of course, at

any time, to audit Newfoundland Farm Products or any other Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, that is basically what the amendment does. It

authorises Newfoundland Farm Products to hire independent, outside auditors. As

I say, the request is, in itself, recommended, suggested, and concurred with by

the Auditor General. I move that we do this for all the right reasons.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly to the

thrust of the bill. Other members may have other comments with regard to the

Farm Products corporation itself, and some of its business. We have no problem

with the appointment of an independent auditor for the Farm Products

Corporation. Speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee of the House

of Assembly, in our many dealings with the Auditor General, appointing

independent auditors for Crown corporations is becoming very much the trend in

government circles these days. This frees up the Auditor General from doing a

lot of the leg work that can be done by independent auditors while, at the same

time, leaving them free, as has become their recent practice, in doing spot

checks of two or three corporations a year and zeroing in to ensure in a

detailed way that certain corporations are following their Act, the Financial

Administration Act, etc.

One thing I didn't notice in the amendments, as supplied, Mr.

Speaker, is any requirement by an independent auditor to perform what it

generally known as compliance auditing. I don't know if that is assumed to be

the case or is generally given to be the case, but it is not mentioned

specifically in this bill. By that I mean that the auditor, when reviewing the

accounts and the books of the given Crown corporation, would check to see if the

Crown corporation is complying with the Public Tender Act, the Financial

Administration Act, the Corporation Act, itself, in the conduct of its financial

affairs. In that way, not only do we get a statement of the books of the

corporation per se, but we get a more qualitative idea as to the performance of

the corporation in the carrying out of its duties and the administering of the

public funds it has under its jurisdiction, according to the various Acts of the

legislature regarding public funds.

In our recent Public Accounts Committee meetings, Mr.

Speaker, we had occasion to have corporations like the General Hospital

Corporation, a school board, both public corporations financed with public

monies in this Province, reviewed by the Auditor General on a spot check basis,

and a number of occasions were pointed out where the corporations concerned did

not apply properly or ignored, in some cases, the Public Tendering Act, certain

aspects of the Financial Administration Act and, I think, in the case of the

General Hospital Corporation, certain aspects of the Hospital Corporation Act,

itself. These matters were pointed out by the Auditor General in his more broad

and sweeping role of looking after the public purse and, of course, were pursued

by our Committee. But I wonder, when an auditor is appointed to a given Crown

corporation, if specific instructions should not be written in the legislation

to indicate that the auditor should look for compliance with various pieces of

legislation applying to that particular corporation, in addition to just

reviewing the financial statements of the corporation, itself.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if anybody else on this

side wishes to have a few words on this.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I just

want to have a few brief words on this Farm Products Act, not so much as it

pertains to the private company auditor -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No. Mr. Speaker, that is a good idea. I

have no problems with that. That probably should have been done long ago. The

problem I always had with Newfoundland Farm Products is that they are always

four years behind in their work, and you could never find out what they were

doing.

Mr. Speaker, I understand from information that I heard

during the Agricultural Fair that Newfoundland Farm Products is in a fair amount

of financial trouble as of the last year or so. In particular, the bill for the

payroll tax is probably the final nail in their coffin. Newfoundland Farm

Products should have had, some time ago, except for its costing a lot of money,

a new modern plant built somewhere, but, Mr. Speaker, there is not enough money

to build a new plant. So what has the government decided to do but leave them in

their own inefficient plant where they can't make enough money to show a good

balance sheet, and now they have whacked a considerable - I forget the figure

now - but a very considerable amount of the payroll tax on Newfoundland Farm

Products. Now, if we remember the year before, agricultural manufacturers and

agricultural and forestry activities, I believe, were exempt from the payroll

tax for two years, Mr. Speaker, or for the first year of the payroll tax. And

last year with the Budget that the Minister of Finance brought in, Newfoundland

Farm Products was brought in under the payroll tax system. Mr. Speaker, as far I

know, they have a very sizeable staff down there and a very large payroll tax

bill, which is just about ready to put them under.

Now, when the minister is closing the debate on this bill, I

would also like to know what his feelings are on the future of the hog industry

in this Province. We have a very small hog industry in this Province now, that I

understand, the minister is trying to close down.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I understand the Minister of Agriculture

is -

MR. TOBIN: Listen, boy, listen!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) chief hog, boss hog. You,

listen.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I understand that we do have a small hog

industry in this Province and I understand that the government is trying to

close the hog industry down. They are trying to get rid of the last -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I don't know, I don't think there are

seventeen hog farmers left in the Province, are there? I'm not sure what the

numbers would be now over the last three years - there are not very many. But I

understand, it is partly because of the Hulan report. When that Hulan report

came to this House of Assembly, I said the best thing to do was to throw it in

the garbage. I asked the minister at the time how many meetings Bud Hulan had

with the Premier to write that report. Mr. Speaker, we can see now that I was

right. I know now what Bud Hulan's intentions were from day one when he got paid

several hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that report. I understand what

his intentions were - to go around this Province to promote Bud Hulan, so Bud

Hulan could run for the Liberals in the next election.

It is very obvious that when I suggested putting that report

in the garbage, that was where the report should have been dropped. I think it

might have been dropped in the garbage, because I haven't heard a sound about it

since. There was supposed to be a group of public servants do a review of the

report and within a month or so they would report to the people of the Province

what the government was going to do about that Bud Hulan report. It is dead, it

is gone, it has disappeared. I hope the garbage swallowed it up. I really hope

it did.

But, Mr. Speaker, we know now why Bud Hulan was going around

slapping backs and shaking hands and doing nothing for the farmers, he was doing

it all for Bud Hulan. I thought that from the beginning, but I was willing to

work with him, to see if he would try to help out the farmers of this Province.

It is obvious whose interests Bud Hulan was looking after, very clear now, since

he knocked off a nomination meeting for one of the members opposite.

The fact of what he did to the Member for St. George's shows

you a bit more about Bud Hulan than is obvious when you first see him. He is not

the only one, there are two more members over there who are going to get knocked

off, too. You don't believe me, but it has been lined up by the Premier. You

don't believe it, but it's true. I know it's true. I know that one is true, too.

MR. TOBIN: Who are the others?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know one of them, I don't

know the second.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, the member is aware of it. He doesn't

know that the Premier is trying to set him up, but he is aware that he will be

challenged for the nomination by Gussy Roberts, I believe is the man's name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The member's - I hope you beat him. You

should. If you're a good member in the House of Assembly you will beat him

anyway. You should be able to beat him. But that isn't always the case, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask the minister, when he is

closing the debate on this, to give us a rundown on what the future is for the

hog industry in this Province. Because Bud Hulan wanted to close the hog

industry down. Bud Hulan put a lot of words in there about our disease-free

hogs, and that we should be marketing a special disease-free strain of ham and

pork products throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Baie Verte might well

listen. The Member for St. George's didn't listen to me when I told him. He

didn't listen. Now, I told him. He was warned at least eight months before any

of this happened, and he wouldn't listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, if he had got out there and done his

work when I warned him - and the Member for Baie Verte should listen, although I

know he won't listen to me. He is a nice fellow. I have known the member for

quite a while. I have known him since the time I was in Rural Agriculture and

Northern Development.

MR. MATTHEWS: Gus Roberts is a nicer fellow.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I can't remember Gus Roberts, whether I

met him or not. I probably did, but I don't know. But I am giving you the

warning now that the Premier is setting you up and you are going to get nailed

if you don't get out and do the legwork. This place here means nothing. It is no

good sitting over in that corner saying nothing. The Premier wants you in that

desk so his buddy is out in the district taking over on you. That is why you are

sitting in that corner there and this fellow Roberts is out doing the work. Bud

Hulan did the same thing. The Premier paid him $300,000 or $400,000 to do an

agricultural report, and he went out and knocked off the Member for - he was

thinking early on that he would run against the Member for Humber Valley, but he

chickened out of that one, so the Premier told him where to go - what district

to look after.

AN HON. MEMBER: They paid his travel expenses

(inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I don't doubt they did pay his

travel expenses while he was out campaigning. He certainly was campaigning from

day one. He is the real American politician, the real American, back-slapping,

hand-shaking politician - no substance whatsoever to him, but just a big smile,

back-slapping and hand-shaking.

Anyway, that is the man who wants to close down the hog

industry, and the man who is going to be running for the Liberals in the next

general election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I don't know. I am not sure of the other

district. I don't know. It is not you. I know it is not you. He is not setting

you up. We are trying to set you up.

I want the minister, when he stands, to give us a rundown on

what is happening to the hog industry in this Province. Is it true that the

government is planning to phase out completely all pork production in the

Province? That is the word that the hog industry has. The government probably

won't start it until after the next election, but that is what they want to do.

One of the reasons that they want to get rid of the hog

industry is that they want the space down in Farm Products to increase chicken

production. Now, I understand that the Chicken Marketing Board has been given

the word to get out and produce more chicken. 'Go after more quota', I believe,

was the quote that was told to me. The Chicken Marketing Board has been told by

the department to go after more national quota, to get it here. We can get lots

of it. We are due a good bit of chicken quota. The problem is, we have nowhere

to process it. We can't process any more chicken here unless we do one of two

things: we build a new, modern, efficient plant - which is what should be done,

but I know the cost, and it is not easy to come by that kind of money right now;

or the other thing we could do to make some space is to shut down the hog

industry; and I believe that is what the minister and the department have

planned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pat Cowan is being challenged for

nomination.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know there are a couple more being

challenged for nomination over there. That was just brought to my attention. I

know the Member for Conception Bay South will be challenged, but the Premier is

not setting that up, that is part of the business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who set that up?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Nobody set it up, as far as I know. That

is just part of the process. It could be the other one, but I don't think so.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Premier wouldn't do that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, the Premier can't afford to be seen

as being heavy-handed with the only female person he has on that side of the

House. He has to be very careful of how he gets rid of her.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Would he confirm that the

Chicken Marketing Board has made requests nationally for more quotas for the

chicken industry in this Province? They are eligible to receive more quotas, but

if we do get more chicken quota in this Province, what are we going to do with

it? You can't process it on the West Coast. You can't process it in Corner

Brook, because everything processed in Corner Brook has to be frozen and shipped

in to St. John's in order to sell it, and it costs too much. You can ship it in

more cheaply from Quebec. You make your best money on the freshest possible

product, and that is the product produced in St. John's and sold fresh. There is

still a lot of it frozen, but we can't produce any more in Corner Brook because

we are shipping all of that east now - not all of it, but most of it. It has to

be frozen and shipped in to St. John's and sold at a loss. Most chicken in the

Province is sold at a loss anyway.

But if you want to be innovative enough - there was a

proposal brought to me when I was minister, a very good proposal. The person

didn't continue with it, unfortunately, but it was a good proposal. That person,

who is very knowledgeable in the business, in the catering business not the

chicken-slaughtering business but in the catering business, that person says

that he could make money from enough hors d'oeuvres around St. John's from

chicken parts and he would make twice as much. That person, I think had a good

idea, but he came across some fairly big obstacles before he got going on it.

The Member for Bell Island or whatever his name is, the Minister for Tourism,

was not here at the time but he might have some knowledge of what the proposal

was, but, Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets up now, I would ask him to just go

over the future of the hog industry in this Province and let the farmers know,

do not let them keep investing their money in their business if they are not

going to be in business in a short time. Let them know that after the next

election they are gone, that is all you have to do, so they will not spend their

money, they would stay around until the next election and hopefully, at least

you would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) before the next election?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well if you do it before the next

election, but you will not. You will not do it before the next election you are

going to do it after, unless you are willing to take over the debt load and pay

off the capital costs for all the farmers, that would not be bad but I don't

know that we should be closing down the hog industry in the Province. We do have

an unique product. We do happen to have an unique pork product in our Province.

We have the only singular, disease-free -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: - whatever it is, we have the only

disease-free strain of hogs in North America. Good business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Good pigs.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, well that is the reason we can do

this because we are an Island and we have good control over it; government had

good control but the trouble is it cost a fortune. You can get a disease-free

anything if you want to spend enough money on it, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can grow cucumbers if you want to

spend enough money on it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, you can grow then in six or eight

days. Who said it the other day, from here to there in eight days? Someone over

there. Danny, it was yes. From there to there in eight days is that the cucumber

one?...but you can grow anything. You can grow cabbage on Water Street if you

want to spend enough money on it, but, Mr. Speaker, the hog industry is not out

of whack far enough that it should be closed up. I think you can make good

arguments to continue the hog industry in this Province and I am afraid that the

government is not going to do it. They are going to get rid of it because of the

subsidies that you put in it. People talk about the subsidies that we put into

the agricultural industries in this Province occasionally, saying that you can

import stuff from Nova Scotia cheaper or you can import stuff from Quebec

cheaper, but those places have at least double the subsidies that are in

Newfoundland.

In 1985 Quebec's alone on farm grants, was $500 million. That

was Quebec's; now the federal government was putting money in those farms too,

no wonder we cannot compete. No wonder our products seem to be more expensive,

but our farmers happen to be more efficient. Our farmers are doing a better job

and they are getting less subsidy on it. So, Mr. Speaker, what we should be

doing is trying to promote our product and shipping it elsewhere hoping that

some subsidies would be eventually taken off some of the other places, so the

minister might give us a run down on the hog industry's future and: is it true

that the chicken industry has been directed to go for more quota, and if so,

where are we going to process them, who is going to get the quotas? Is it going

to be new entrants or are the quotas going to be swallowed up by those who are

already in the business, which happens quite often, and hopefully give us some

kind of an indication of what the chicken industry's future might be, then, by

knowing what the future of the chicken industry is going to be, probably we can

guess what the future of farm products will be, the bill we are doing now might

be and whether we need an auditor in the future for them or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agriculture. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to

address a comment in response to the comments made by the hon. Member for White

Bay, and I have to say to him, I cannot tell him with certainty whether or not

the audits being done by the auditors appointed by Newfoundland Farm Products

Corporation will indeed be compliance auditing.

I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that they will be required to do

the same kind of auditing and deliver the same type of service that the Auditor

General was delivering. In the meantime, it is a responsible comment and one

that warrants an answer, and I will undertake to determine to what extend the

new auditors will provide compliance auditing to Newfoundland Farm Products.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few of the comments made by

the hon. Member for Kilbride, the former Minister of Agriculture, on whose

doorstep most of the problems in agriculture today can be laid. He claimed, Mr.

Speaker, that Newfoundland Farm Products is in great financial difficulty. He

claimed, I think, that they are in arrears on their payroll tax. So he has

indicated great financial difficulty. Now, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Farm

Products have always required a subsidy of about $4 million a year. I mean, the

former minister was recommending and approving those kinds of deficits for

Newfoundland Farm Products four, five or six years ago. So they are in no more

difficulty now then they were when it was the responsibility of the hon.

gentleman to answer for and direct Newfoundland Farm Products.

The hog industry: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Hulan didn't recommend the

shutting down of the hog industry. Dr. Hulan made recommendations relative to

the hog industry. He offered suggestions that might or might not be acceptable

to either the industry or to government. So, Mr. Speaker, yes, it is a fact that

the Government of Newfoundland is looking at the hog industry, determining the

future and what role the government will play in the future of the hog industry.

The industry is aware of that, the Hog Marketing Board is aware of that, and

everybody who has an interest is aware. Mr. Speaker, when the government decides

the role they want to play, or if they make the decisions they are contemplating

now, the hon. member, the industry and the House will know.

It is very irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, of the hon. gentleman.

He stated that government paid Bud Hulan - he referred to him as Bud Hulan -

$400,000 to $500,000 to do the task force report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Hansard will show he stated $400,000 to

$500,000.

Mr. Speaker, the whole task force report only cost $800,000.

Now, there was a gentleman by the name of Dr. McCrae, a noted gentleman, and

there was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Oates who were members of that task

force. That is very irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, of the former minister.

Mr. Speaker, talking about Dr. Hulan and his political

ambitions and his running where and what he did or didn't do, I am told that the

reason the hon. member withheld making his own announcement, that he didn't

intend to run again, that he was going to resign, was that he wouldn't make that

announcement until he heard what Dr. Hulan's plans were, because he knew he

could get elected in Kilbride. The industry in Kilbride, Mr. Speaker, doesn't

agree with the hon. member. Most of the hon. member's constituents who are

farmers, have come to me and said, or have written, very complimentary things

about the role that Dr. Hulan played. So the member is obviously at odds with

his own constituency, his own farmers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Most of them from Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply stating the facts. It is totally

irresponsible of a former Minister of Agriculture in this Province. The previous

government had recommended a task force on agriculture and it took this

government to appoint it. So it is totally irresponsible for any member of that

front bench -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: It is totally irresponsible. They should be

ashamed of themselves, to make such statements in the House. The height of

irresponsibility!

Coincidentally, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: - it is interesting that the only two

gentlemen speaking up over there are the two that you would expect such

irresponsibility from.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Farm Products - he wants to know if

we are going to build a new plant. Now the cost of a new plant is approximately

$10 million to $12 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, there was a need for a new Farm

Products building ten years ago. Newfoundland Farm Products is just as efficient

today as it was ten years ago, seven years ago, six years ago, but the need for

a new facility was there. What did that hon. member choose to do? He built a new

facility alright, but he built the facility in Mount Pearl at a cost of $22

million. He could have replaced Newfoundland Farm Products for $10 million -

half of what he agreed to spend in Mount Pearl to build a Sprung facility. And

he stands up and talks about responsibility, and talks about the need for

Newfoundland Farm Products to have a new facility. He should be ashamed to take

part in this debate.

I want to say to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a step

forward in government approving Newfoundland Farm Products' request, supported

by the Auditor General, to appoint their own auditors, and I move second

reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Farm Products

Corporation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 10).

MR. ROBERTS: Order 6, Bill No. 19.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Registered Nurses Act". (Bill No. 19).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment to the Registered Nurses Act is a pretty

straightforward thing. What we are basically saying is that we are asking that a

committee of the council conduct disciplinary hearings within the Association of

Registered Nurses, rather than the council itself.

Having said that, there is not much else to say.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, we have no great concern about

this legislation. The committee to conduct these hearings obviously will come

from within the Association of Registered Nurses. I understand the Association

will have the authority now to conduct disciplinary hearings.

I am wondering, did this legislation come about as a result

of a request from the Association of Registered Nurses, or is government

initiating this particular piece of legislation? I am just wondering where it

came from.

I have been trying to get in touch with the Association of

Registered Nurses to find out if they have any concerns about the bill, but I

have not been able to make the necessary contacts; so I am wondering where the

bill comes from. I know it is coming from the Department of Health, but I am

just wondering if it comes about as a result of a request that was made through

the Association of Registered Nurses or is it being done outside of them? Does

the minister know if the association has any great concerns about this

particular bill? That is essentially the only question I had for him.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise in support, in principle, of the legislation

being brought forth. I may be able to answer the hon. member's question

concerning the - I do not know where the request comes from, but I would guess

it would have to come from the Nurses' Association because I know, from my own

experience, the procedure that the Registered Nurses' Association was following

previous to this, that disciplinary hearings and allegations made against a

nurse that might require a suspension or the revocation of a license as a

disciplinary procedure, the entire council of the Registered Nurses Association

used to hear these hearings, so you would have twenty-five people sitting down

sometimes for two to six days all having to be paid and looked after with

accommodations to hear a very important matter. Let me say that when they take

these matters on in terms of an allegation of misconduct by a member of their

profession, they do take it very seriously and every attempt is made to have all

sides of the issue heard, but it is a very cumbersome process. I suppose it may

have been okay in the days when very few patients or very few members of the

public or even health professionals were inclined to take actions against nurses

or professionals for improper conduct. It may have been okay for t