March 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 2

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing hon. members, the Chair is ready to make a

ruling on the point of privilege raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader

on March 4th. The Chair would like to thank the hon. member for raising this

issue because I can assure the hon. member that over the last couple of years

things were happening that the Chair was uneasy about. First when we started

talking about television broadcast, when we converted into electronic broadcast,

we had some vague guidelines set up but since that time with the changing of

personnel in the press and in the Speaker's office, we were not always on top of

things. So the Chair was glad that the member raised that and it gives me an

opportunity to address some of the things which I was concerned about, in

addition to his concern.

Now to the script, on Thursday March 4th, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader raised a question of privilege concerning the presence

on the floor of the House of an individual taking pictures who apparently was

not a member of the press gallery but a photographer under contract to the

Liberal Party. I have since established that this indeed was the case. The hon.

the Premier stated on Friday that if the photographer was present under the

auspices of the Liberal Party he was not aware of it and concurred in the

remarks of the hon. the Opposition House Leader. I must advise hon. members that

it was through the Speaker's office that the photographer obtained permission to

be present on the floor of the House but there was a misunderstanding. The

request was made at noon on Thursday during the flurry of activity that proceeds

the opening of the House. The Speaker's office was under the mistaken impression

that the photographer was a member of the press gallery or associated with the

press in some way, hence the pass was granted. I might also express that in

addition to the hurry, we only do these things twice a year, either for the

Throne Speech or the Budget Speech. We try to be as flexible as possible and as

accommodating as possible so that we do not leave any of the press out, they

might want to update their files, so we try to be as accommodating as possible.

The Chair accepts responsibility for the misunderstanding and can assure all

hon. members that in future the credentials of photographers and media personnel

will be thoroughly investigated before permission is given to them to go onto

the floor of the House.

Under the circumstances therefore, the Chair does not

consider that this incident constitutes a prima facie case of breach of

privilege. Additionally the presence of photographers may be somewhat

distracting but this in itself is not unusual on ceremonial occasions and is

what we put up with when we give consent to the press to be here. The

proceedings of the House were not seriously impeded and the matter, as I have

explained, arose through a lack of proper process and not to the best of the

Chair's knowledge through any deliberate attempt to mislead the Speaker's

office. Under different circumstances the Chair might take another view.

The incident of Thursday last does emphasize, however, the

necessity of establishing more precise and comprehensive guidelines respecting

admission to the floor of the House. The Chair will therefore meet immediately

with the two House leaders and the Member for St. John's East and the president

of the press gallery, as is required, to review the guidelines, to fine tune

them, to refine them, and expand them to address this particular concern and

other concerns of the Chair. When they are done we will circulate them to

members and to members of the press so that everybody will be familiar with what

our procedure is.

In conclusion, the privileges of members and of the House are

one aspect of the question of admission to the floor of the House. Security is

another. New guidelines, therefore, should address these matters - that is

security and the admission of members along with other media concerns. I hope

that we will have this in place by Budget Speech day.

I thank hon. members.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to your point, after such a lengthy admission of guilt,

I say to Your Honour that instead of waiting until the tenure of the Speaker,

which is normal for the Speaker to be hung, that I move, seconded by the Member

for Kilbride, that the hanging begin immediately.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, I am the Member for Humber East.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair has to get into being

indoctrinated again.

The Member for Humber East, I am sorry.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This March 8th is International Womens' Day and, as the only

woman member of the House of Assembly present here now, I would like to draw to

the attention of all hon. members the significance of the day.

International Womens' Day is an occasion when women gather to

celebrate gains hard won over the past several years - gains which are being

eroded by this government. It is also a time to reflect on the reality that many

women are suffering under the burden of poverty, fear of violence, and lack good

self-esteem.

This is a day when the leader of the government should rise

in his place. The Premier is absent now. The acting Premier should rise and

announce plans of the government to improve the position of women in

Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a day when the acting Premier should admit to

mistakes made by the administration over the past three-and-a-half years -

mistakes -

MR. ROBERTS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy for the

hon. member's interest with the interest of women of this Province, but she is

not making a point of order she is simply making a second class partisan attack

under guise of an improper statement. She has every opportunity to do it. The

Throne Speech will be called today and so forth. This is clearly out of order

and I would ask Your Honour to rule on it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was not aware that the hon. member

was on a point of order. The Chair thought we were into the statements by

members. That is not a part of our regular routine although in the last couple

of years we have been allowing them. Again, it is a procedure that we are

operating without any rules. I can only tell hon. members that in Houses where

they have those rules the statement is very brief. As a matter of fact I did not

start timing, I have not, but I think in Ottawa, and the hon. Member for St.

John's East might know this, but I think in Ottawa the time limit is ninety

seconds, so I would ask the hon. member to please clue up. Again, I believe, as

in Ottawa, we are not suppose to get into debate but make just a simple

statement and I ask the hon. member to clue up please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

Your Honour was quite correct in his assumption. I was

drawing to the attention of all hon. members the fact that today is

International Womens' Day and I was taking to task the Government House Leader

and other members opposite for failing to announce their plans of action to

improve the lot of women in this Province. I invite him, when he has the

opportunity under Ministerial Statements, to give us an accounting of the Wells

administration's strategic plan to improve the position of women in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to mention to the House that this being

Education Week I was very surprised that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members must be forgetting that we are not on a point of

order. We are into this period again where we have not gotten into the

proceedings. If hon. members do not want to do it then they are going to have to

tell the Chair but that has been the procedure, a procedure we have been

recognizing before Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is Education Week and the minister has not recognized the

importance of education to the economy of our province and to the economy of

this country and the world. We are in an age where natural resources are the

basis upon which the economy operates and the focus today is an increasing

emphasis on competition between education and skills. Provinces and nations that

have been successful in this regard are the ones that are prospering.

British Columbia has changed its focus on human capabilities,

and so on, as opposed to based on natural resources and I think the acting

minister is very remiss today not to have a statement regarding the commencement

of Education Week from the 7th to the 13th. Maybe it is a part of this

government's strategies in ignoring and not being sympathetic to the importance

of education in society today, in a province where, the literacy rate is far too

low, where the job market today is demanding a post-secondary education. The

rest of this decade and into the nineties, it is very important and will become

increasingly important that education be the cornerstone by which we are going

to get out of this economic malaise we are in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If we are going to have a future, it must

be built on education. This very government has stated that education is the

focal point of the strategic plan and here today they have not recognized the

importance of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member please to co-operate with the House.

The Chair has been lenient - the hon. member has been rather lengthy and I think

he has made his point.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would take advantage of the

same latitude allowed to other members. Let me expose the cheap shots of the

hon. gentleman opposite for what they are. The Minister of Education is not here

in the House at present, Mr. Speaker, because he is attending a program for the

opening ceremony for Education Week, 1993. The Premier was supposed to be there

but the Premier is away from St. John's today attending the funeral of a member

of his family; hon. gentlemen opposite will concur with that. The Minister of

Education is in good company, I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, including the

President of the NTA and others, and I think this procedure is being abused by

the hon. gentleman opposite, who either knows or could have known, that is where

they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: The trouble is, who cares?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is at the School

for the Deaf, but hearing hon. gentleman opposite, this could be the School for

the Deaf. But, what I would say, as one single member of this House, is that I

am not prepared to put with this abuse of the rules anymore and I will say

simply, I will object to any member attempting to abuse the rules in this way

from here on in, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of an indication from the Government House

Leader that a Ministerial Statement will be read on the commencement of

International Women's Day and the celebrations associated with it, I would like

to also add my voice to the commendation to the House of the recognition of

International Women's Day as an important event in the calendar and an important

day to remember the struggle that women had and still have for proper

recognition and equality in our society. I know the Member for Humber East has

made comments about this issue today and in the past, as has this hon. member,

and I only regret today, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have twenty-six women and

twenty-six men here to show and demonstrate that equality.

I regret that this House didn't pass the resolution that was

brought forward last time because that would ensure the kind of equality that is

necessary and have the women in this Legislature making the rules, demanding

equality and putting equality in place. That is what I would like to see, Mr.

Speaker. By the time we are back here for the next International Women's Day, I

would like to see twenty-six women here and twenty-six men.

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to hon. members today

that I have been advised by the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation

Commission that the Canada Pension Plan offset related to secondary benefits for

those receiving workers' compensation payments has been reinstated. The

secondary benefits deducted refer to that portion of the Canada Pension Plan

payment related to dependent children under 18 years of age.

Since January 1 1993, 134 injured workers have been affected

and I am informed that the Workers' Compensation Commission has written to each

individual to inform them that deductions that were initially imposed will be

adjusted immediately, and retroactive to January 1 1993. However, the Commission

will continue the practice of offsetting primary CPP benefits from net earnings

as opposed to gross earnings, as had been the practice prior to January 1 1993.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say, I am

delighted that the minister succumbed to the pressure from members on this side

of the House, in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Because, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will recall

this is one of the issues that we raised in this Legislature last November and

December and which this government said we were wrong about. The Premier said he

didn't know what we were talking about. If ever there was evidence needed we

have it here today.

Now, I only say to the minister: Why doesn't he go one step

further? Why doesn't he reverse the change that he made last fall, which now

takes money out of the pockets of workers' compensation recipients, who are

suffering all over this Province as a result of the actions of his government

last November? Why doesn't he go all the way and make that change, as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: I would like to speak to the Ministerial

Statement, Mr. Speaker.

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

asking for permission to speak to the Ministerial Statement. Are hon. members

agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The changes that are brought about are, of course, welcome.

They should not have been made in the first place, and this minister should not

have permitted them to happen, and pass it off as having been done under the

guise of the very retrogressive changes being made to the act last fall; but I

do say, Mr. Speaker, that what the minister said - the tail end of his comments

- is costing workers' compensation recipients money every week and every month

from here on in.

The deduction of the CPP from the net income as opposed to

the gross income is, in fact, costing them money and taking money out of the

pockets of recipients. In effect, Mr. Speaker, they are paying income tax twice

on the same income, and that results in each and every worker's compensation

recipient who has CPP offset for children suffering from a loss of money, and

the minister should do something about that.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a quick

question, if I may. There was some public statement made that the Budget would

be presented on March 11th. I gather there have been some other statements made

somewhere along the line that say that date is no longer in force and there is

some talk of another date, I think, the 16th or something. I am not sure, but

can he confirm it for the House today?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the original announcement we

said we would aim at the date of the 11th, which is this Thursday. Since then,

we have indicated that we would have difficulty reaching that objective and that

it would be a few days later.

We have been working all weekend in terms of getting the

numbers together. It takes a certain amount of time to print, and so on, and I

will better be able to say, and I think I could make a definite announcement

tomorrow, as to which day it would be, whether it would be the 16th or the 18th,

but it will be next week, for sure.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, basically, it is a new

question, if I might, to the Minister of Finance still, in his capacity as

President of Treasury Board or maybe as Minister of Finance. In any event, I

will ask the question. We will see in what role he answers it.

We have heard the Premier make some public statements over

the last week or ten days or so. A lot of his public statements have caused a

considerable amount of surprise and disbelief, in the public forum in

particular, by his statement, specifically, that no one in the government had

ever suggested rollback in wages for public sector employees. I heard him make

those comments and I saw him, myself, with my own two eyes.

Now, on February 12th, the minister wrote a ten-page letter

to a public sector union, in which he laid out government's position in a little

greater detail. He said in the letter, and I quote: 'An approximate 5 per cent

reduction in wage and benefit cost is required. This objective can be achieved

by either reducing the size of the work force or reducing wage and benefit

rates.'

Now the Premier asked aloud at his press conference: Where is

all this talk coming from? This is a bogeyman.

I am sure the minister is familiar with the comments I am

making. I want to ask the minister: Why does he stand by and allow the Premier

to go out of his way to discredit him, as minister? And I want him to tell us:

Who is telling the truth? Is the Premier telling the truth, or is the Minister

of Finance telling the truth when he wrote his letter of February 12th?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to explain to the Leader of the Opposition

that there is no contradiction at all. We have stated from the beginning that

there is a certain amount of money that had to be - government expenses that had

to be cut, and that a certain amount of it would be found in the programs and

normal government expenses but, unfortunately, a fairly large number, we are

talking in terms of $70 million to $90 million, had to be removed from the total

compensation package. Now, obviously, there are ways to do it. We could have a

layoff of 3,000 public servants. Our choice is not to do that. We could simply

roll back the wage rates or the salary scales. Our choice is not to do that.

We believe that there are other options to achieve that

particular saving in total compensation, and I will quote verbatim from that

letter: 'Simply stated' - this is under the heading 'Government's Bargaining

Position'- 'the government's position is as follows: An approximate 5 per cent

reduction in wage and benefits cost is required in view of the Province's

financial position, and is essential if we are to continue to provide the basic

public services required by the people of the Province.'

Note, Mr. Speaker, '5 per cent reduction in wage and benefits

cost'. But it goes on to say: 'Government is prepared to engage in negotiations

on all monetary aspects of the collective agreements in order to achieve the

approximate 5 per cent reduction. And there is much more in the letter that

indicates what government's preferred option is.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is no conflict here. We do not want to

take the first option of having mass layoffs in the public service. We feel that

would be counterproductive. We feel that rolling back of wage rates and yearly

salaries, and so on, is not our preferred option, as well. However, in the total

compensation package, through the co-operation of the public sector unions -

through their understanding and co-operation, we should be able to find the

amount of money to remove from that total expense of government without any very

serious effect on the individuals or the service provided by the public servants

in the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think, about the only two

people in this Province who don't see a contradiction are the Premier and the

Minister of Finance. Everybody else in the Province sees the contradiction, and

it is clear in the letter. The minister referred to the objective being reached

by reducing wage and benefit rates. The Premier asked: 'Who is talking about

this? Where is this coming from?' Anyway, I will get off that subject. I will

let the minister try to explain it publicly as time goes on.

I would say to the minister that if he and the Premier want

to continue to retain any kind of credibility on this particular argument, it

would be very wise of them to immediately stop engaging in these silly mind

games that they are playing to try to score political points - because that is

all they are doing.

I want to ask the minister this: There are many out there who

suggest that what the government is up to now in terms of this wage rollback, or

whatever you want to call it, is really an unprecedented money grab. It is

another matter entirely from what we have normally been used to when you talk

about wage freezes. There are others out there, for example, who say - and I

will quote Dr. Boswell and ask him if he will comment on it: that 'public

employees don't deserve the contemptible and thankless treatment to which this

government has subjected them. It is neither fair nor balanced. It is a

disgrace.'

I want to ask the minister this question: Does he not believe

that public employees, under their plan, are being deliberately victimized by

this government with the approach he is talking about?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I share the Leader of the

Opposition's concern about what has to be done. I share that concern. However,

there is an inescapable fact that we are faced with, an inescapable truth, and

that is that our revenues have been reduced. Now that is an inescapable fact. So

we have to cut expenses. There is no other choice open to us for a variety of

other reasons. We have to cut our expenses. We have no money. So we have to do

so in the way that would cause the least possible harm to, number one, the

individuals who are working for us; and number two, to the services that are

provided in the Province. We have to find a way to do that.

We felt that perhaps the best approach - and this is in line

with our general approach to things anyway - is to undergo a consultative

process with the public sector unions. We felt that they could perhaps provide

some insight into the best way to do this. Unfortunately, that process, in many

cases, is not working, although I might say to the hon. gentleman that some

union leaders have come forward with suggestions that we have been very grateful

to receive and I thank them very much for it. But we are in a process that does

not seem to be working to the extent that we would like.

So I just lay out the situation for hon. members. This is the

inescapable truth. It is not a comfortable position to be in. It is not one that

we want to be in. We would love to be in a totally different situation,

especially in the few months before an election.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, he mentioned the magic word at

the end, I suspect, 'before an election'. There are many out there who suspect

that what the government is up to is a deliberate ploy, an election ploy. The

minister may want to comment on that if he wishes. Let me say to him, this: The

minister often gets up and tries to paint himself and his government colleagues

as the victims of economic misfortune, but the reality is, Mr. Speaker, it is

not he and his colleagues who are the victims, it is real people out there

around this Province who are having really difficult times.

Now, our own Minister of Education has said publicly that he

didn't expect the teachers, for example, to vote for a strike. That was his

quote, assuming he was quoted correctly. The Premier has said that the last

thing in the world he wants is a strike in this Province, and I believe the

minister, himself, has made some reference to it. I think he said last night

that the threat of a strike, as a result of the teachers' vote, really doesn't

make any difference to him, because they are going to proceed on course. At

least, that is the way the story was played. I want to ask: Is he telling the

public employees of this Province, then, who are very frustrated and angered, as

he would know by now for sure, who feel that they have been beaten into the

ground by four rounds of wage freezes and wage cuts and all the rest of those

things over the last four years, is he saying to them: It is just too bad, you

are going to have to be the victims once again; we do not intend to change our

course of action and our plan as we have outlined?

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

MR. BAKER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

point out that this is a situation that is shared by every other province in

Canada. Instead of going through the consultation process, Manitoba announced

simply ten or eleven days off without pay for all the public servants. It is a

situation that all provinces in Canada are facing because things have changed. I

am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't realize what is happening

in Canada, in North America, and in the world. The situation has changed. Put

quite simply, Mr. Speaker, we are presenting to the people of the Province

exactly where we stand. We have already taken tough measures to increase taxes.

We did that in December. We have already taken tough measures to reduce our

normal expenditures. We did that in December and we have done it for three years

now. We have taken these very tough measures and we will have to take more tough

measures to reduce our expenses, but the inescapable fact, Mr. Speaker, is that

of our controllable expenses close to 70 per cent of the controllable expenses

are in the wage and compensation category and, unfortunately, that expense must

be reduced. But I reiterate once again, Mr. Speaker, that I believe it is

possible to do that, I hope, in a co-operative way with the public sector unions

so that there is the least possible harm done to both individuals and the

service that is provided in the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this:

Since when do we, in this Province, have to take our lead from the Province of

Manitoba and the Province of Ontario? Look at New Brunswick: They are doing

something about it. Their Premier has been very aggressive in trying to attract

business and jobs to his province. British Columbia is doing something with

their economy. They are taking a different approach. So you don't always have to

take the approach from the most negative that is available out there. I want to

ask the minister specifically: How does he respond to those people why say that

this government wants a strike in order to save money? Is it not a fact that all

of these little manoeuvres in the public sessions and at the bargaining table,

all these little cons and plays on words that we hear about from day to day, to

day, have only one purpose and that is to divide and polarize the public

opinion, to divert their attention away from the real problems we have with our

economy and from the lack of action that this government has shown in responding

to that economy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the situation. I

suppose, in the past, when revenues were increasing, and so on, that the

previous government would go to bargaining situations to try to trick and pull

the wool over the eyes of people and so on, to try to get the best deal

possible. I suppose that that was a logical approach by the previous government

in times when revenues were always forever increasing. Mr. Speaker, we have

taken a different approach. We have told the public sector unions the truth at

every stage of the game. We have told them the situation, we described the

situation as it exists. It is not pleasant and we admit that, these are not good

times to govern. We do not have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around

every few months like the previous government did, we do not have that. These

are not easy times to govern but Mr. Speaker, we will govern in the way that is

best for the Province and we will continue to provide the best service that we

can possibly provide to the people of this Province in spite of these difficult

times.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, was meant for the Minister of

Education but in his absence I will direct my question to the Minister of

Finance in his capacity as president of Treasury Board. He is well aware of the

financial problems facing the Roman Catholic School Boards and the Integrated

School Boards in Western Labrador. The mining companies which paid grants in

lieu of school taxes to those school boards have cut their grants by over a

million dollars this year and next year. Of course the minister is aware of this

particular problem because it was brought about because of a change in tax

regulations that this regime brought in. Now, Mr. Speaker, since the government

by its action caused this problem, will the minister provide additional funding

so that the school boards can help solve this problem?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation.

I am not so sure that the connection the hon. member made is correct, however I

do understand that that particular area of the Province has been getting a

special deal for a number of years in terms of increased numbers of teachers,

increased teachers salaries and so on, that have been paid, not out of the

public purse but from the company, and now the question is will we as a

government provide the extra money that is no longer being provided by the

company? The answer, Mr. Speaker, has to be no. We cannot provide the extra

salary, the extra teachers to one board in the Province, without providing it to

all boards in the Province. We are dealing with public money and the public

money must be spent fairly and equitably in all regions of the Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would

care to comment on a letter that a previous minister of the crown, one of his

colleagues in Cabinet wrote when he stated, and I will quote from the letter,

Mr. Speaker, the letter was dated March 4th, 1992 and he said, 'let me assure

you, the board and the parents, that it is not governments intention to devise

and implement a revenue mechanism that would negatively impact upon the revenues

currently realized by your school board.' Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear

there what he says, 'revenues currently realized by your school board -

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

I will just bring to the attention of the hon. member our own

standing order relating to questions. I refer the hon. member to our own

Standing Order 31 (

d) which says, 'Oral questions must not be prefaced by the

reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or

preambles of any kind.' So,

I will ask the hon. member to try and get to the question without a lengthy

reading from the letter.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I merely took a small excerpt

from a letter that the minister had written.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the school boards, the people and the

teachers in Western Labrador are asking this administration to live up to the

intent of what that letter stated. Now, can he confirm for the school boards and

the people of Western Labrador that this government can be trusted and live up

to that statement.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I hope his ability to quote from

a letter is greater than the ability of the Leader of the Opposition when he

quoted from my letter - what I read out was a little bit different. I would have

to see the whole letter to determine any intent. I am not prepared to accept the

hon. member's expression of intent in the letter. I am prepared to say that

public money in the school system must be spent equitably across the whole

Province. In reality there can be no special deals in terms of teachers'

salaries or numbers of teachers with any individual school board.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I will table the letter and I

will show the minister a copy of the letter, and it is true that the former

Minister of Education did say the exact quote that I read to the House of

Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of Finance is

also aware of the dire straits that the school boards find themselves into in

Western Labrador this year. Mr. Speaker, this school board cannot meet its

contractual arrangements with its employees nor its teachers; they cannot meet

those contractual arrangements with these teachers, what does he propose that

they do? What does he propose that they do to meet those contractual

arrangements?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could say that they

have to solve that problem. However, I would like to point out to the hon.

member, I believe it is only today, this morning, that I received a letter from

the bargaining unit there or the board there, thanking me for appointing members

to a committee to have a look at financing and so on. There are two members from

government, two members from Labrador West to have a look at the financing, so

there is a committee that has been set up, Mr. Speaker, and I just this morning

got a letter thanking me for setting up that committee.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have important questions affecting some of the poorest

people in our Province, single parents and children on social assistance. I

would like to put the questions to the Premier or the Minister of Social

Services, but in the absence of both of them, I will ask the appropriate acting

minister to respond.

Why haven't the government admitted that they made a bad

mistake early in their term of office in categorizing child support and

maintenance as non-allowable income for calculating entitlement to social

assistance? Why haven't the government reversed that decision, number one, to

restore the incentive for single parents on welfare to try to get support from

an absent parent and number two, to make it possible for single parents, most of

whom are mothers, to receive an extra fifty to $100 a month, to a maximum of

$115 a month, so they can give their children nutritious food and the material

things necessary for a good start in life?

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is away from the

House on a matter that every hon. member I know would agree as a reasonable

matter and a reasonable reason to be away. The Minister of Social Services I am

told is home sick, so in his absence let me simply take the question as notice

and the minister will reply at the earliest opportunity.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader and Minister of Justice may not

know the significance of these questions because he was not a member of the

administration when the regressive change was made in October of 1990, but the

other members of the government know full well what I am talking about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with the question please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board.

Will the minister admit that his government made a bad

mistake when they categorized maintenance and child support as non-allowable

income to calculate entitlement to welfare? Will he admit that this has taken

away completely the incentive to try to get court orders for child support, and

it significantly reduced family income for single parent families on social

assistance?

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to advise the House and the hon.

member that the full answer will be provided by the Minister of Social Services

when he returns.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I last asked this Minister of Social Services, the

present Minister of Social Services about this, I asked specifically for his

rationale for this policy, he replied that he has no rationale, so I ask the

Minister of Finance, is there a rationale for this regressive social assistance

regulation? If the minister is correct in saying there is no rationale, will he

initiate corrective action to restore the incentive to single parents on

welfare, to try to get court orders for child support from an absent parent and

to supplement their family income by just a slight amount, a slight amount to

the government, but a lot to the poor families affected?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again, I am not

willing to accept the

interpretation of the hon. member, however, I will say

that the full answer will be provided in due course when the Minister of Social

Services returns. We'll make sure that a full answer is provided, including the

rationale.

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

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

the Minister of Health. A few days ago government released a consultant's report

on the reduction of hospital and nursing home boards in the Province. It

recommends that the numbers be reduced from over twenty down to seven. Let me

ask him: how much money does the government intend or expect to save from that

reduction in the number of boards? Will any money saved be reinvested or

reinstated into the health care system to better serve the sick and elderly in

the Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We regard this

initiative as an extremely important one by which boards will serve an area

rather than a single institution. In that way we believe that health care

decisions will be made appropriate for the region rather than just necessarily

for the benefit of the particular institution. We also think that there will be

some financial savings in this, money that we desperately need to put into our

community care and into health, into sickness prevention, because the priorities

are shifting. Priorities have to shift from institutional care to home care with

the major emphasis being on prevention. We know for example that if we all

stopped smoking today in time we'd save about $60 million on our hospital

budgets alone.

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

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, in reading that report I note

that the report contains no information as to how the reduction in the number of

boards will improve the quality and efficiency of our health care system. Does

the minister have any details that he can provide us with today on how these

boards are going to work and how they'll provide better health care more

efficiently in the Province? Will the minister table these documents if he has

them so that we'll be made more aware of how these boards are going to work more

exactly?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under

consultation in the Province now for several years. We appointed a consultant

last fall. The consultant has been going around the Province interviewing

boards, several meetings with every hospital board, and many of the nursing home

boards, both jointly in meetings where several were present, and severally, and

receiving briefs. The matter has been under thorough discussion. She's made her

recommendations. Now the process from here on in is that we will be taking each

region that she recommended separately, and I will be meeting the people

involved there to see if there are any adjustments that should be made to her

report. We believe that this will be a major thrust forward as far as health

care in the Province is concerned.

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

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit strange

that the government would proceed with these recommendations without having more

detailed information on the impact on the quality of health care and the

delivery of health care services, and the efficiency in the health care system.

Is the minister really convinced that bigger is better? To reduce it from twenty

down to seven will make it more efficient in the delivery of health care? Can he

tell us why the report is so vague, and why people should have any confidence

after reading that report that to reduce it from twenty down to seven is going

to make it easier for the government to deliver a better quality health care in

the Province?

MR. SIMMS: Where's the evidence?

MR. DOYLE: Where's the evidence? Why is the report so

vague?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We commissioned the

consultant. The consultant did a lot of consultation with the stakeholders

involved - that's the word they use now for people who are involved in the

industry or in the profession - and made a report. The report, unlike quite a

number of other reports, is not a seventeen-volume thing. It's an extremely good

report, very concise and thoughtful. It's not meant to be the dotting of every i

and the crossing of every t, but we believe it is an extremely good report and

we will be, in our discussions with the various people, making any adjustments

that are required.

I might say that there is tremendous support amongst the

hospital boards and nursing homes across the Province. There is some

disagreement, as has been evinced from some areas, but it is of a minor nature

as far as I know, and if adjustments are needed in her recommendations then

adjustments will be made; but basically we believe the report is a very good

plan for the reorganization of health care in this Province, and should result

in better health care. Since we are in these strained financial times, which

could very well last longer than the present year - it is hard to predict - we

have to be careful of how we spend our money. This, we feel, will enable a

better health care for the same dollar, and more and better health care for the

same amount of money.

We really believe that this is a good report.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that what the

minister is saying is accurate - that it will provide a better quality of health

care for the Province - but again I would point out to him that the report is

very vague. I think that was one of the things that came out of the report - it

is very vague.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Could the minister indicate to us how much

that particular report cost the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, it was not an expensive report.

I do not have the exact figures. Perhaps I should check it out, but something

like $30,000 comes to my mind, counting travelling expenses and everything.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the public

accounts of the Province for the year ending March 31 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not often that the Chair gets a chance

to present a report, so the Chair is taking advantage of this opportunity. In

accordance with

Section 32 of the Auditor General Act I table the Auditor's

report and financial information respecting the office of the Auditor General

for the fiscal year ended March 31 1992. Also, in accordance with

Section 13 of

the Auditor General Act, I table the end report of the Auditor General for the

fiscal year ended March 31. And in accordance with

Section 28 of the Auditor

General Act and the resolution respecting the appointment of the Auditor

General, adopted by this House on March 20 1992, I table the financial

information and management letters for each of the Departments of Social

Services, and Works, Services and Transportation for the fiscal year ended March

31 1992.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in the

House now the departmental observations on the Report of the Auditor General for

the fiscal year ending March 31 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: On behalf of the Select Committee appointed

to draft a Reply to the Speech of His Honour The Lieutenant - Governor, I

present a report of the Select Committee as follows: 'To His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor, The Honourable Frederick W. Russell. May it please Your

Honour, we the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Session

assembled, beg to thank Your Honour for the Gracious Speech with which Your

Honour has addressed the House.' It is signed by myself, the Member for Trinity

North and the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Presently by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently by leave.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on December 17 1992 this House

selected a committee to deal with

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act

which, at the time, was labelled Bill 67, and you will notice today, Mr.

Speaker, it is now changed to Bill No. 1 in the House. I want to just make a few

brief comments. On behalf of the committee, I can honestly say that in our

deliberations we found that this particular piece of legislation would probably

be considered the most progressive conflict of interest legislation in the

country, and the other surprising thing about it was the fact that there were

absolutely no presentations made to the committee outside the committees

members, themselves. This was surprising when we all heard of several criticisms

of this piece of legislation in the media lately by certain members from the

other side. I do submit this and I want to thank the members of the committee,

the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Kilbride, the Member for Lewisporte,

the Member for Naskaupi, the Member for St. John's East and the Member for St.

John's North. I will now submit this report to the House, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Presently by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently by leave.

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 Government Corner Brook Pulp And Paper

Limited Agreements Act."

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain

resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider

the raising of supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to

consider certain resolutions for the granting of supply to Her Majesty.

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

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

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

Loan Act."

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

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

tomorrow give notice of the following resolution:

WHEREAS the processing sector of the fishing industry is

within the provincial jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS the restructuring of the processing sector of the

fishery -

MR. SIMMS: Processing sector - yours.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: If the member could keep his exuberance.

WHEREAS the restructuring of the processing sector of the

fishery, to take full advantage of opportunities for the manufacture of higher

value fish products - and if the member doesn't know, that is secondary

processing - is our best prospect to rebuild the economic value of the fishery;

and

Whereas the Provincial Government has done nothing to develop

the potential in the processing sector for new investment and job creation;

BE IT RESOLVED that the government immediately determine the

amount of excess capacity in our current processing plant inventory, and how

much of that capacity can be converted into value-added secondary processing;

and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government immediately put a

plan in place to help primary processors and new investors diversify into the

production of value-added products including the utilization of by-products and

underutilized species.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move the following motion:

WHEREAS there is a great possibility that a major oil spill

will take place off our coast unless changes are made with regard to oil tanker

safety; and

WHEREAS an oil spill would have devastating effects on the

marine environment and the economy of this Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the

Federal Government to take immediate action to increase inspections of foreign

ships, improve emergency preparedness and to become more aggressive, both in the

areas under jurisdiction and in the international level of oil spills.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS school bus transportation is provided by the

Provincial Government to the Department of Education to students who live a long

distance from their school, at no direct cost to students or their parents; and

WHEREAS, in the City of St. John's, where the St. John's

Transportation Commission provides a bus service, school buses paid for by the

Department of Education may not operate, and students or their parents must

directly pay the total cost of school bus transportation; and

WHEREAS this situation creates economic hardship to many

families and results in loss of school time, lack of safety, and other problems

for students whose parents cannot afford to pay bus fares; and

WHEREAS this situation is unfair and results in inequality of

treatment and discrimination against St. John's students and their families;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on

record as supporting equality of treatment of all school students and their

families regarding school bus transportation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to

revise school bus transportation to students within the City of St. John's on

the same basis as provided throughout the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Department Of Tourism And Culture".

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, may I give two or three

notices, in fact five, to be precise, on behalf of colleagues of mine who are

absent.

On behalf of the Minister of Education:

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act".

On behalf of the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation:

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law In The Province Respecting Rail

Service".

On behalf of the hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs:

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television

Companies Act".

Again, on behalf of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs:

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991".

And on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Lands:

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

a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On

The Environment".

Petitions

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

MR. GREENING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present to this hon. House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GREENING: - a petition on behalf of 365 residents of

the community of Bloomfield, Bonavista Bay.

I would like to explain to the House that this petition was

not, at first, properly addressed to the House. Since then, it has been

corrected and initialled by three members of the Save Our Forest group. The

prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly: In the interest of tradition,

and preserving our forest and wildlife for our continued use and enjoyment we,

the undersigned, are opposed to clear-cutting within a five-mile,

eight-kilometre radius of our community of Bloomfield.

Mr. Speaker, approximately a year ago, members of the Save

Our Forest group and myself met with the hon. the Minister of Forestry and

expressed our concern over the way the department is managing, or mismanaging,

the industry in Terra Nova district, in particular, the area between the Town of

Port Blandford and the community of Winterbrook.

The perception was that the group wanted to put a stop to

clear-cutting. The fact of the matter is, the petitioners and the commercial

operators have one goal, that is, to protect a properly managed forest industry.

The Save Our Forest group not only represents the district of

Terra Nova, but also the districts of Bonavista South and Trinity North. The

answer is to provide a mutual buffer zone around the communities, and a

five-mile radius is suggested where applicable. In order to obtain this buffer

zone, the residents of the three districts would like to have input into the

future management of the industry. Therefore, I would suggest that the hon. the

Minister of Forestry attend a public forum, preferably in the district of Terra

Nova, with the petitioners and with the commercial operators, and discuss our

concerns and hear our suggestions.

The forest industry has been a traditional way of living for

domestic cutters and commercial operators, and I believe it can continue in the

same manner if the hon. the Minister of Forestry would agree to meet with both

groups and let the residents have input in the future management of the

industry.

Mr. Speaker, we don't want to see happen to the forest

industry what has happened to the fishery. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise in support of the

petition presented by the Member for Terra Nova, and I would suggest to all hon.

members that this group must be listened to. The voice of the fisherman was

ignored so many years in this Province, and I think in our forest industry we

also have to look at the potential of another Northern cod crisis in the

forestry of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

introduced to this House of Assembly a couple of weeks ago the Twenty-Year

Forestry Development Plan, and in this plan, a very important paragraph,

Chapter

4, analyzes the timber supply and demand in this Province. It spells a great

foreboding if the forest resources of this Province are not managed properly.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to start now and involve the users of

that forest, the loggers, the wood cutters, the private operators, the public

generally, in this plan. It is not satisfactory to leave it to bureaucrats and

scientists. The people who are dependent upon this forest must have a say, and

not just a meeting with the minister - and I am sure the minister must meet with

them - but to set up a process whereby the people who are users of this forest

are, in fact, involved in the management, involved in the choices that are being

made.

Mr. Speaker, the simple request of this particular petition

talks about no clear-cutting around communities. That is an important part and

an important demand of this group, but what this group is all about is far more

than that, it is the preservation of our forestry resources, the maximization of

the use of the resources, and to ensure that any forestry activity involves the

sustained ability of the forest and, not only that, the sustained ability of the

people who live on them and the communities that live on them. That has to be

the primary object of any forest policy.

There is a lot of debate and a lot of argument and a lot of

choices that have to be made in any forest management or any resource management

use, but if we do not - right now - establish a policy that involves people in

these decisions, and allows the facts to be out and on the table, and allows the

participants to have a say, then we are going to have the same kind of problem

with our forestry as we have with our fisheries and with the communities that

are dependent upon the fishery.

There are great arguments about clear-cutting in general,

about forestry methods in general, and also about environmental process. We know

that the forest management plans of this government are taken outside of the

Environmental Assessment Act. That worries me, Mr. Speaker, and it should worry

every hon. member here, that they have some special rules to govern themselves.

We know what happens when clear-cutting has taken place in this Province close

to streams, close to river beds - vast areas clear-cut. Soil erosion and

problems with our rivers and streams and silting have resulted.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very big issue. It is only recently

that the government has even started to address it. But it is a very big issue

and important for our future, and I urge all hon. members to listen and listen

well to the people who are using and dependent upon our forests, and see to it

that proper forest management procedures are put in place, and that the people

and the communities dependent on this forest have a direct and ongoing say in

the use of that resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a few

words on the petition so ably presented by the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

Let me, for a couple of minutes, talk about clear-cutting. Because there is a

real danger that we will get the same kind of attention in Newfoundland for

clear-cutting as B.C. or Northern Ontario.

Everyone should know that just because of the geography of

Newfoundland, with the lakes, bogs, rivers and the barrens, Newfoundland will

never, if we cut every tree in Newfoundland, practically, by clear-cut method,

be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as with the major clear-cuts in B.C. and

Northern Ontario and other places.

So let's know what we are talking about clear-cutting. When

the Department of Forestry issues a permit to an operator, whether it is

Abitibi-Price or Kruger, or whether it is a major sawmiller, the odds are he is

going into a stand of timber with the same age class. The odds are, we are going

to be demanding 100 per cent utilization of that resource. So, clear-cutting is

an accepted tool in good forest management when you know you are working with

forest of the same age class. You cut it all down, and it regenerates itself.

Let me tell the hon. the Member for Terra Nova and the hon.

the Member for St. John's East, they are both, as am I, and as probably a lot of

other people in Newfoundland, with this issue, on the horns of a dilemma. There

are twenty-eight commercial operators on the Bonavista Peninsula. It is hard to

get a number of jobs those operators support, but it is somewhere in the

vicinity of 300 to 400, full-time part-time. Twenty of those twenty-eight are

operating within an eight-kilometre radius of a community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you see the dilemma. I can say: No more

clear-cutting on the Bonavista Peninsula within eight kilometres of a community,

and if I do, I effectively shut down the sawmilling and pulping industry on the

Bonavista Peninsula. Maybe the hon. the Member for St. John's East will be just

as quick to get to his feet next week when a petition arrives here with 300 to

400 names on it from people who are earning their living, and the community

which sees the commercial harvesting of wood on the Bonavista Peninsula as their

economic base. So the hon. member should be ready.

Let me ask the hon. member this: If I were to consider as

minister acceding to the request and declare no more clear-cutting, which would

mean, in effect, no more commercial harvesting within eight kilometres of a

community, should I not apply the same rules in Central Newfoundland, on the

Northern Peninsula, or the West Coast?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition - let

not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Member for Kilbride

try to switch now and say the prayer of the petition is a meeting. I am one of

the most accessible ministers in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: My staff, Mr. Speaker, have been meeting day

in and day out, with the group that is presenting this petition today, as well

as with the commercial operators. So the prayer of the petition is not that I

meet - the prayer of the petition is that I stop clear-cutting within eight

kilometres of a community on the Bonavista Peninsula. If the government decides

to take that attitude, then everybody had better take the blame when the bottom

falls out of the economy on the Bonavista Peninsula, or at least, the part of

the economy supported by the logging operation.

Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for what the people of

Bonavista and the signers of the petition are trying to accomplish, but there

has to be a happy medium. There is no way to stop harvesting within eight

kilometres of a community on the Bonavista Peninsula without shutting down the

commercial - the harvesting, whether it is for pulpwood, for saw logs, or

whatever, on the Bonavista peninsula, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to meet with

the people who have presented the petition, either here in St. John's or in

Terra Nova. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, it is a very difficult job to try

to balance out what they are asking and what the people who are making a living

on the Bonavista Peninsula harvesting timber are asking. Thank you.

MR. R. AYLWARD: All they want is a meeting.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the residents of Mobile I would like to present

the following petition. I will read the prayer of the petition; To the hon. The

House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition

of the undersigned, all enfranchised residents of Mobile, an unincorporated

community on the Southern Shore in the district of Ferryland, that the

government of Newfoundland and Labrador take action to remove from any proposed

amalgamation of municipalities, the local service district of Mobile. Wherefore

your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take such action as quickly as

possible and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, 148 residents of Mobile. They managed to reach

all except three residents of the community to have this petition signed by 148

people of voting age in the district. The people in the area are very concerned

with the proposed amalgamation plans encompassing the community of Mobile. Two

years ago there was a commission of inquiry of three members that went out and

took public submissions on amalgamation from the people of the area. That

report, it was two years ago, was a report that was never completed and the

residents of Mobile feel that the report was negative against amalgamation and

therefore government has now ordered a new amalgamation plan, a new commission

of inquiry, to go out again now and try to get the result that they want. Well,

the people of Mobile have the result that they want at present. They have their

own water, they have their own private septic systems, they have their own

street lighting, they pay a fire protection fee to the town of Witless Bay. They

are quite happy in Mobile. They are on the outskirts of the proposed

amalgamation area. Witless Bay and Bay Bulls are the other two communities being

proposed in this amalgamation process and I have seen, during the past few

months, some of the ill effects of amalgamation that was forced upon the people

of Middle Pond.

Middle Pond is almost a dozen miles from the Town of St.

John's, from the City Hall, it is on the outskirts of Bay Bulls. They decided to

join Bay Bulls, they do not want to be a part of the City. They had no say

whatsoever in the amalgamation process in their area and in Mobile the same

fears are being expressed. The community is 100 per cent united down to the last

person in the community. They went through great pains to go to every resident

there and only three people, either were not at home or they could not be

reached in order to sign this petition. It is very important, I think that the

wishes of the people in Mobile should be listened to. The request is to remove

Mobile from the list of amalgamation of communities that are occurring in that

specific area. I do not think that it is an unfair request, I think it is time

that the government listened to the people in an area when they are proposing

and appointing a commission of inquiry. If they do not get the results that they

want they should put it to rest. They should not appoint another inquiry until

they go out and get the result that they want. I think that the people of Mobile

here are irate, they do not want to be a part of this plan whatsoever and they

asked Municipal Affairs to remove them from this plan and when the commission of

inquiry proceeds they are asked to just discuss amalgamation of Witless Bay and

Bay Bulls. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition put forth on behalf of the

people in the district of Ferryland, particularly the community of Mobile, as it

relates to the proposed amalgamation of the communities of Witless Bay, Bay

Bulls and I think it is - the Member for St. John's South wonders if I have been

to the Southern Shore, the answer is yes. I have been there many times, Mr.

Speaker, I understand that Tors Cove may also be included.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You are getting paid a fortune for going

back and forth there.

MR. WINSOR: I will not comment on what my colleague said,

Mr. Speaker. I want to speak on this petition because it is a serious matter

again because what we find is that this government is intruding into the right

of a municipality or a town to run its own affairs. Mr. Speaker, I thought after

the fiasco that occurred with amalgamation a while ago it would never rear its

ugly head again but obviously it is back again, Mr. Speaker. We have a group of

people saying: we do not want to become part of a larger town. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier has said on many occasions that the people would not have to amalgamate

if they did not want to. Now, Mr. Speaker, we clearly in this case have a

community almost entirely, who have said that they do not want to become part of

the larger town. Mr. Speaker, it's another game of words that the Premier plays

because if the two larger towns want it than these people will have no say. So

they have been disenfranchised, they do not have a right to vote, even though

all the people of that particular community don't want to become part of the

larger municipality being proposed, this government intends to ram through a

study to do things that the majority of the people do not want to do. This has

been going on now for the last three years since the present Minister of Social

Services proposed those amalgamations, those groupings throughout the Province.

We thought we'd seen the last of it. We obviously haven't. This administration

tends to forge ahead against the wishes of the people and enforce amalgamation

on them when they don't want to, Mr. Speaker.

I ask that the members of this House support my colleague for

Ferryland who spoke on behalf of the people of Mobile, asking that the minister

not do as he's done in the past with areas in the St. John's area. We see the

kind of fuss that's been created as a result of ramming through legislation,

ignoring the wishes of the people and what happens when we do that to

municipalities. I support the petition and ask that this House go on record in

supporting the people of Mobile in their quest to save their own community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition signed by 110 residents of Little Bay Islands, and also signed by

twenty-four students at H. L. Strong Academy on Little Bay Islands.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: we the undersigned

hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to refrain from treating education as

an expense and to recognise it rather as an investment in our future. We feel

that if teacher layoffs, school closures and/or wage rollbacks are brought into

effect the children of our communities will be caused to suffer due to a

decrease in the educational programs and lack of essential services, such as

physical education, music, art, computers, et cetera. We do not consider such

actions made by the government to be the responsible actions normally expected

from the leadership of our Province. We the people do have the final say.

That is the statement of the prayer from the people of Little

Bay Islands. Since this government has started talking about its budgetary

situation, considerable ripples have flowed through the education community with

regard to what possibly is going to happen. We all know that the teachers have

taken a strike vote recently with regard to their own particular contract. One

of the things that the people on Little Bay Islands made clear to me when I

attended a public meeting there is that they are concerned, particularly with

the maintenance of their existing school. They are an island. It is difficult,

if not impossible, for students to commute to larger centres on the mainland. As

a result the school in Little Bay Islands must be maintained.

However, the business that's being kicked around about the

elimination of the 2 per cent rule would cost the Green Bay Integrated School

Board some thirty-odd teaching positions. That could possibly impact on just

about every school in the district, and certainly even the loss of a single

teacher or even a half teaching unit on Little Bay Islands, would be a

considerable hardship for that particular community. There's a threshold level

below which you cannot go and still have an operating and viable school. The

people there are very concerned that as their island starts to grow and expand

economically they're afraid that the school will not have sufficient numbers

under current regulations to stay as an individual school.

Little Bay Islands is well aware of the inclinations of this

particular government. This government tried to take away their ferry system

there a year or so ago. Last year it tried to smooth talk them out of their crab

processing licence. Both initiatives on the part of government they resisted. As

a result today there is a large new crab factory being built on Little Bay

Islands. It will be open this spring, employing some 300 plus workers. So you

have a community that has a new lease on life but that is worried. If numbers of

teachers are eliminated in the present budgetary cuts then the school itself may

be under attack and may not be viable if there aren't enough teachers to sustain

a school unit.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition, and I ask that it be

tabled and put to the department concerned. Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has taken a very assaultive approach on

education in this Province. They fail to realize that the success of any nation

or province or individual depends upon their educational level.

In this Province the adult literacy rate is extremely low. We

have many people failing to even get a high school education, and too many

graduates of our high schools cannot find jobs, and when the job market today is

requiring that people have a post-secondary education, this Province is slashing

education to the bare bones. In fact, the longer we neglect the problem of

dealing with the underlying cause of the problem in our Province, the more

serious the problem will get.

We have a big problem here in the Province, and it is not a

budget deficit. We have an education deficit here in this Province. We are far

below other provinces in this country, and Canada is falling behind other

nations in the world. If we do not correct the root of the problem we will

continue to fall further and further behind.

Now this Province just slashed, in the mini-Budget, $20

million out of education, $17.6 million out of current account, and the

remaining out of capital account of this Province. They have looked at, in this

budget again, taking a further $25 million alone in education - not counting

numerous other areas of education that they have been picking away at over the

past number of years.

We should be more concerned today with the deficit in

education rather than the deficit in our budget, because if we are ever going to

eliminate a deficit in our budget to get the economy moving again, it has to be

through skilled people in our work force - not with a high illiteracy rate, not

with people who are out in the market who do not have the skills to take on

these jobs, not in a Province that has people having to leave this Province and

seek work elsewhere, and the people that do train and develop skills and so on,

a lot are leaving this Province because nothing is being done to develop a

climate for economic activity here to even be able to keep the trained people

that we do produce.

I support my colleague in the presentation of this petition.

I think education has been in for some rough times over the past four years and,

with the Budget coming down possibly the 16th or 18th of this month, once again

I think we are in for some terrible times and education, while it is

acknowledged as the focal point of their economic strategic plan, they are

paying lip service to their strategic economic plan. They should practice what

they preach, establish priorities to get out of this economic mess, and put

education as that number one priority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another petition to present, but I will gladly yield

for the Minister of Education if he would like to respond to the petition just

presented so forcefully by the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to present the petition. The hon.

minister did not stand.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition I wish to present is of hundreds of residents of

western Newfoundland protesting the closure last September of the cancer clinic

in Corner Brook, and calling on the government to reinstate the clinic.

As I pointed out to Your Honour earlier this afternoon, the

petition is not specifically addressed to the House of Assembly, but it clearly

seeks government corrective action. It has been signed by hundreds of people,

and the initiators of the petition, a cancer patient and her husband, asked me

to present it in the House of Assembly. So with Your Honour's permission, or

with leave of members opposite, I will proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition reads: To all residents of the west coast of our

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

just as the east coast of the Province is. We have to show the government that

they need to listen to us. By signing this petition you will be showing your

support to have our cancer clinic reopened so we also can have a fighting chance

at life.

Then it asks cancer patients to signify their phone numbers.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was drafted and prepared by Eileen

Morrison, a cancer patient residing in Mount Moriah in the Bay of Islands, who

has been battling cancer for the past ten years. Her husband, Derrick Morrison,

who works at the paper mill in Corner Brook, assisted her.

The Morrisons, their relatives, friends and other cancer

patients throughout western Newfoundland, have been collecting signatures on

this petition and are continuing to do so. So until the problem has been

addressed by the government I will be coming in, day after day, presenting more

and more petitions.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of western Newfoundland are angry.

For twenty-one years we had a cancer clinic. It operated during the 1970s and

the 1980s. It operated until September 1992. Cancer specialists based in St.

John's visited the Corner Brook clinic regularly, at least once a month, and

gave cancer patients from western Newfoundland checkups and treatments. Since

September western Newfoundland cancer patients have had to go to St. John's at

their own expense and this has placed a terrible strain on these cancer

patients. They have had to cover their own travel and accommodations expenses,

all of them, except for the few who are entitled to social assistance. Relatives

or friends have been unable to accompany them in some cases because of the cost

or because of work commitments. In situations where relatives were able to

travel, of course the cost was doubled. Cancer patients have had to take time

away from their homes, their families, and their jobs to get treatments in St.

John's. Some cancer patients who should have had checkups have gone without

because they cannot bring themselves or they cannot afford to travel to St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, Eileen Morrison, the instigator of the petition,

gave me a letter titled 'A Plea for Life' which she asked me to read in the

House of Assembly. The five minutes allotted to me will not allow me to read it

all but let me quote excerpts. 'My name is Eileen Morrison and I am writing this

letter on behalf of myself and all other cancer patients on the west coast of

Newfoundland. I have been fighting a battle with cancer since the age of 32

which has been for the last ten years now.' Mrs. Morrison outlines the surgery

she has had, the illness she has suffered, and continues to suffer. She goes on

to say, 'In those ten years I have been seeing a cancer doctor regularly. The

cancer doctors used to come to Corner Brook every month but because of the lack

of doctors we cannot get any doctor now to come here, the reason being the lack

of money from our government.' She goes on, 'My thoughts are - if you have or

get cancer on the west coast of Newfoundland our government is telling us to

stay home and wait to die. Give us our clinic back, it is our life on the line,

not yours. When someone with cancer has to travel to St. John's for cancer

treatment it is very hard.' And she describes how hard it has been for her and

her family. She concludes, 'So, Mr. Kitchen and Mr. Wells, why not take time out

for some serious talking. Give us our cancer clinic back and our own cobalt

unit. Life to me is so very precious.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with leave let me add that I

wholeheartedly support the petition and I call on the government to immediately

reinstate the cancer outreach clinic for western Newfoundland, to immediately

have cancer specialists visiting the clinic in Corner Brook to serve western

Newfoundland patients.

Thank you.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise with regard to

the petition. Of course the issue itself was raised by the hon. Member for

Humber East on CFCB and other west coast media at the time when the issue came

to light. Now initially the issue was one of whether the cancer clinic itself

had been closed. The day on which the hon. member opposite chose to make an

issue of the problem I received a number of calls from some very alarmed cancer

patients in my own district. After receiving those calls from some very

distraught and very upset cancer patients I then chose to call the Minister of

Health, the former Minister of Finance, to find out exactly what the situation

was and I was alarmed to hear from him that this was not entirely the way it was

being put. The hon. Member for Humber East was in fact out telling people that

the cancer clinic had been closed and no cancer patients would be able to

receive treatment in Corner Brook, and really putting fear in the hearts of all

cancer patients. Now, there are individual cases of some cancer patients,

depending of course on their situation, that would have to travel to St. John's

because there was no cancer specialist available, no oncologist available in

Corner Brook, but that is not always the case.

I know of a number of cancer patients in Port aux Basques for

instance, who travel to the Western Memorial for cancer treatment who are able

to receive full cancer treatment the same way as they always have, so the clinic

itself has not completely closed up shop, it is a matter of specific cancer

patients having to travel entirely because of the changes made because of a lack

of an oncologist available.

Now what would she suggest if you only have two or three

oncologists? That we lower the amount available in St. John's and move it out to

the west coast? That would possibly be a solution, but then there would be

people in here who would be unable to meet their cancer specialist so we have to

look at it in an overall situation and I really think that there was a lot of

very crass politics played with this. I had reassurances from cancer patients

that things were not as bad as the hon. member was portraying it to be for all

cancer patients. Granted some cancer patients were in fact in the situation and

I sympathize with their situation, it is a very difficult thing having to travel

regularly to St. John's, but for her to suggest that the situation was entirely

as bad for all cancer patients on the west coast, was very poor on her part to

suggest, it was very crass politics, it was of the highest order, the very

gutter type of politics that the hon. member plays and I was personally very

disturbed by it and I think it is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

member should be taken to task for, playing that kind of politics with an issue

such as this, in scaring people who have no need to have that kind of pressure

put on them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard it all until I

heard that hon. member from LaPoile just say what he had to say. He said, Mr.

Speaker, that the hon. member for Humber East should not be putting the fear of

God in the people. It is the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, it is not the

member, it is not the member for Humber East or the member for LaPoile, it is

the hundreds of people who signed this petition, they are the ones having the

problem with this government. Let me tell him, Mr. Speaker - he can shout out

all he wants - but I am going to tell him right now, this matter was not raised

on Open Line in Corner Brook the first time, this matter was raised in this

House by me in November, early in November. I raised it here in this House when

the minister denied at the time that there was any closedowns or shutdowns or

cutbacks, he denied it at the time. Now, Mr. Speaker, the person who told me

about that problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - was a man, who suffered from cancer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: He was a man who suffered from cancer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health on a point of order.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the

hon. member Opposite should not mislead this House by making statements which

are patently untrue.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: That is a typical, silly point of order by the

Minister of Health, it is not even worth responding to. Now I will say to the

Member for LaPoile once again, this matter was raised and brought to my

attention back in early November by a constituent of mine in the Health Sciences

Centre when I went in there to visit somebody, and this person came to me in

that hospital and said: here is what happening. I am a person who needs

radiation treatment, I was getting it in Grand Falls every month -

DR. KITCHEN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - every month -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Will the Minister of Health let the hon.

member at least have his say?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there has never been radiation

treatment outside of St. John's, and this is the sort of thing that I am trying

to say, he is misleading this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members know the procedure for presenting petitions.

They are not periods of debate and I ask hon. members, please, to adhere to the

rules as much as possible. If we do not, we are only going to end up in bedlam

and chaos, and I ask hon. members please to pay attention, no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. The Minister

of Health is trying very desperately now to cut my time because I only have five

minutes to speak, that is all he is trying to do and if he wanted to know about

the person who came to me back in November and said -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SIMMS: - the individual - I will tell him the truth,

the individual who came to me in the hospital said to me: he was getting

treatment from that cancer clinic in St. John's and they were getting it on a

monthly basis. The Minister of Health knows that is true, until he cut it, he

could not provide them with the funding to hire more oncologists, and do you

know where that individual is today, Mr. Speaker, the person, my constituent, my

friend, who brought this to my attention in November?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. SIMMS: - he died! He died two weeks ago! Thanks to

the Minister of Health and others, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the lack of effort on

the part of the Minister of Health and others, I'm saying, in his Department.

That's the truth of the matter, I say to the Member for

LaPoile. It's not crass politics. It is true! The sooner that members opposite

open their ears and listen to what's happening and see what's happening out

around this Province, the sooner members opposite open their ears and listen to

people who are suffering, then the better off this Province will be and the

people of this Province will be. That is our whole problem.

I say to the Member for LaPoile finally: to accuse the Member

for Humber East in this particular debate on this particular petition, he

himself, as he continues to do, plays down what's occurring, instead of

addressing the problem, acknowledging there is a big problem. Because there is a

big problem. The concerns brought to the attention of the House today by the

Member for Humber East are the concerns of hundreds of people who signed this

petition. Not the Member for Humber East. She brought their concerns to the open

line program because people called her. I brought concerns to this House in

November because people contacted me, including the individual constituent who

since has passed away.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: So don't ever stand in this House and accuse

me of practising crass politics, or the Member for Humber East -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - when all I'm trying to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - is get members of the government side to

open their eyes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members please when I tell them time is up that

they would please take their place, or at least ask for leave.

The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: Point of order.

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

point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I presented a petition

dealing with the closure of the cancer clinic in Corner Brook. My colleague, the

Leader of the Opposition, supported my position in a very forceful and emotional

way. The Minister of Health interrupted the Leader of the Opposition. Isn't the

Minister of Health now going to speak to the petition?

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

There's no point of order. The Minister of Health is not

allowed to speak to the petition. Three people spoke, and the Minister of Health

is not permitted to speak.

MR. ROBERTS: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The only reason the Minister of Health

didn't rise is that there had been three speakers, and as Your Honour has said,

that is the rule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the point of order

raised by the Government House Leader, we're quite prepared on this side of the

House to give him the leave to speak. I realize his colleague for LaPoile stood

before he had a chance maybe to stand. I would certainly like to hear what he

has to say.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Minister of Health speaking?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Minister of Health have leave

of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

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

members opposite for giving me the opportunity to speak to this petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: The cancer clinics that have been operating

in Grand Falls and Corner Brook are still operating. They have not ceased to

operate. So when people say that the cancer clinics in Corner Brook and Grand

Falls are not operating, they're not really telling it the way it is.

What has happened is that there is a serious shortage -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, the treatments are proceeding for the

people who need it. It's chemotherapy that was going on in Grand Falls and

Corner Brook. People are still getting chemotherapy in Grand Falls and Corner

Brook where these clinics were. They're being administered by specially trained

nurses who specialize in this area and who are operating under the jurisdiction

of the Cancer Treatment Foundation, which is headquartered here in St. John's.

What is missing, and what was, are visits by cancer specialists. It is a serious

question, there's no doubt about that, but the treatment is still proceeding.

People who required radiation, that other form of cancer

treatment, always had to come to St. John's. The equipment is very expensive and

that is why we have had to keep the radiation oncologist that we've had in St.

John's to handle the radiation. We don't have enough to send them any more for a

while. There is a fourth, we were down to three. There is a fourth here now for

a short period of time, and that person will be leaving I think at the end of

the month. But then we have another oncologist coming here. He's due in the

first part of April.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: No the first part of April.

When he comes we are expecting that these clinics will resume

- the visits by the specialists will resume.

I am told that it is not necessary, for a person who is on

continuous chemotherapy, to have their signs necessarily monitored by a

specialist in cancer. A physician can do it. Other specialists can do it.

Sometimes a cancer specialist is required, and that is when the people sometimes

could come to St. John's.

Now I appreciate the problem of expenditures. The rule is

this, in the Province now, that the first $500 of expenditure in travel is borne

by the person, and the Province picks up half over that - and it is not each

trip; it is the total for the year. So if you have to come more than once, the

first $500 is yours and so on. I know that is not an appropriate procedure. We

would like to have it otherwise, but it is what we can afford at the moment.

Now then, let me say one more point about the radiation

oncologist. We did have lined up to come here before Christmas, a very special

person in the area - a highly renowned, internationally renowned person in the

area of chemotherapy type oncology, and that person was going to be here. We

were very excited about his coming here because with a person of his stature

here it would help us attract other people. What has happened is that he had a

sickness in the family and he is not now expected until the summer, and we are

not even sure if he is coming, but we are trying to do it.

I want to make the point that there is a desperate shortage

of these specialists across Canada and elsewhere. It is not something that is

affected by the price that we pay. It is not a matter of money. The Cancer

Treatment Foundation has the money to hire them. The problem is, they cannot get

them. They have tried and they have travelled all over. As a matter of fact, I

would like to pay tribute to the people running the Cancer Treatment Foundation

in the manner in which they have been able to line up people to come here.

Now then, once the fourth person comes, we are expecting

another person to come here later on in the spring, a Canadian, a Newfoundlander

coming back from training on the mainland. Then we will have five, and if that

other person comes, that I am talking about, we will have six; we will have

plenty.

So it looks like the Cancer Treatment Foundation has done a

tremendous job of recruiting. It is just that you cannot make them available

when they can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, I have a petition today on behalf of

3,503 people on the Connaigre Peninsula.

The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the district

of Fortune - Hermitage humbly showeth. We, the undersigned, petition our

government to initiate immediate action that will provide for a new facility to

address the health care needs of the people from McCallum, Seal Cove,

Sandyville, Hermitage, Harbour Breton, Poole's Cove, Coomb's Cove, Boxey, Red

East.

The petitioners recognize the shortfalls of the existing

antiquated facility and highlight the following: The present facility is more

than fifty years old. It is a wooden structure and is in need of extensive roof,

window and siding repairs, is not insulated, lacks patient privacy, has poor

site access, inappropriate physical layout, to mention just a few. Also we feel

that a new facility would enhance physician recruitment and stability.

We understand there have already been three studies underway

that have recommended the replacement of this existing facility and we

understand also this is the petition that the previous minister recognized the

need for and afforded it priority status, which would see a new building begin

within the next five years. We feel we deserve better, and request some positive

action that will indicate your commitment to this area.

The hospital in question, Mr. Speaker, is the one that is

located in Harbour Breton and it was built in 1935. In fact, I had an

opportunity back in 1955 to visit that facility with a broken limb. At that

particular time we were in isolation, we had no road through and I had to spend

eleven days there and had to be air lifted out later. Our oldest child was also

born at that facility. Practically every second weekend when I go down, I visit

that facility and I see the need for a new facility in the area.

Now, the Connaigre area on the south coast as anyone knows,

even though the road is through to Grand Falls, is a long distance and it is

rough terrain. In a certain

section of the Harbour Breton highway before you

connect to the Bay d'Espoir highway, it is a very, very treacherous piece of

road and often during the wintertime that particular

section is closed off

because of drifting. Even under the best conditions we are talking about

two-and-a-half to three hours drive from down in the area up to Grand Falls.

Obviously there is need for a new facility in that particular part of the coast.

Also, statistics will prove that the communities in question along the south

coast, the residents themselves are aging, there is an older population. I am

sure that as time progresses many people including myself will probably have to,

if time allows me that, to spend some time in that particular institution. It is

not a situation to be taken lightly because I recognize many, many people along

the coast, rather than having to stay in that facility, find themselves in Grand

Bank, find themselves in Stephenville Crossing, find themselves in Gander, find

themselves in Grand Falls and there is no continuity with family. These

particular people, if their residence were in a facility in Harbour Breton,

would be able to travel probably within an hour, rather than the longer period

of time which they have to now. So, the need is there in the area and I really

support the people in their effort to get this new facility. I believe honestly,

that in time it will, because the need is there and when the need is there than

the people's needs have to be addressed.

The minister visited the area last fall and saw the facility.

There is no doubt about it that the people who are operating it, the

administrator and others, have kept the building in as good a shape as possible

but the building does need to be replaced. There needs to be a new facility to

take care of the health needs of the people on the Connaigre Peninsula. So in

time, I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having that problem addressed so that the

people on the south coast can have really adequate long term chronic care and

probably better acute care than they already have for that region.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I do support the

petition and I have already signed it.

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

for Grand Bank.

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

I want to rise to speak in support of the petition presented

by the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. What the member has said indeed is

correct, we can all identify with the need for health care facilities,

particularly the care for the elderly. It is the most pressing and growing

problem that we have with health care in our Province today. Any of us who are

out and about doing our jobs in this Province know the demand and the pressure

for, particularly, chronic care facilities. So, I can fully understand and

identify with what the member is saying, indeed it is correct. There is the need

for a facility in the region that the member talks about, there is no doubt

about that. It is my strongest wishes that before too much longer that indeed

they will get such a facility. We all know that and the member talked about

residents having to go to other sections of the coast and sections of the

Province or regions to be accommodated and I guess the most traumatic experience

must be for someone, that senior citizen who has their wits about them, to have

to go many miles away from home and family to be cared for. It as well, puts a

lot of pressure on family members who want to visit, financial and getting time

off and others but the most traumatic, I guess experience, must be by those who

have to move so far away from home to be accommodated. I know I have ran into it

on many, many occasions where the only way that mom, dad or grandmother or

grandfather or pop, could be accommodated somewhere was many, many miles away

from home. First of all of course, the person concerned did not want to go away

from home but there was no choice and then there is the hardship on family and

friends to try and get to visit those in these institutions periodically, you

know, it's very difficult.

I want to support the petition. I want to say very sincerely,

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, that I look at my own district right now. If we

had a 100 beds for chronic care or level three care, or whatever level of care

it is, that they would be filled up before midnight. Tomorrow morning we would

be into another -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What's that? I'm wrong. All I can say to

the minister is that I look at Blue Crest Inter Faith Home in Grand Bank now.

There's a waiting list there in excess of 100 people. Very desperate cases, I

say to the minister. The only way they can get in there now is if you've just

about had it. Because the list is so long and the place is not equipped to

accommodate those - so if we had 100 beds today, I still say, Mr. Speaker, we

could fill it up tonight. We'd have another problem tomorrow because people are

aging and living longer. The pressure is just tremendous on the health care

system. It's the biggest worry I would say to the Minister of Health and concern

that I have as a private citizen of the Province, and as well as a member

representing a district.

I don't know how in the name of God we're ever going to be

able to cope with it all. Looking at the pressure that's coming on the

facilities and looking at the financial pressures that governments find

themselves under. It's a nightmare. Because we all know we have a responsibility

to care for the elderly in a dignified way, but I guess it's getting so bad so

fast that it makes you wonder where it's all going to go, and where it's going

to end up.

Having said that, I want to support the petition presented by

the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would support

the petition. We have a number of hospitals around the Province which need to be

replaced. There's one in Grand Bank, for example, the hospital there, which

needs to be replaced. It's an acute care hospital. In Grand Bank we want to move

that over and join it on to Blue Crest and then close it. Close it so we can

operate something more efficiently and with better treatment for the people who

are there, perhaps.

I visited Fogo. Fogo has another cottage hospital which needs

to be replaced in time. It's a jewel of a hospital from the point of view of

what's going on there. The same is true with respect to the Harbour Breton

hospital. Good things are going on in Harbour Breton hospital. Good things are

going on in Bonne Bay hospital, which also needs to be replaced in time. So

there are a number of these that need to be replaced. The Placentia hospital is

another one which we hope to replace soon. Also, the same plan there as it is in

Grand Bank, to move the clinic and hospital and attach it to the long-term care

facility, to take advantage of the need for twenty-four hour care in the

long-term care facility, and also that will help in the clinical area.

Harbour Breton is a bit different because it's quite a

distance from the nearest hospital. It's a long ways from Grand Falls, which is

the next hospital. We're going to have to run a hospital in Harbour Breton I

think for quite a long time. It needs to be replaced. I visited there and I was

very much impressed with the care that was being given by the staff. So

impressed I think that I told them that and they were a bit nervous that we

weren't going to build anything new. Because it was so good what was going on

they thought that they oversold their case. Ever since then I've been having to

backtrack. I said: I didn't mean that you didn't need a new building just

because everything was going on good, very well.

I want to raise this question in the minute or two that I

have left. To build a new facility with a hospital and a nursing home attached

will cost, I don't know how much, close to $10 million, say. That will mean that

we will have to borrow $10 million and pay 10 per cent a year. A million dollars

a year just for the interest. Usually a new facility costs more to operate than

the old one. Now the question is: can I do better with that $1 million by

improving what's going on in that hospital then we can in paying interest to a

foreign banker?

Now, that is something to consider. If we build a new

facility to replace the thing that is in a particular place which is reasonably

good now, just build a new building, the building may cost $10 million, we will

have to borrow $10 million from our banker, wherever we get the money, and we

will be paying $1 million a year interest forever, assuming we will never be

able to pay off the debt, $1 million a year out of current account. Now, what

can we do with $1 million? That is the alternative. Can we get better health

care for that million dollars than replacing a building? Just think about that.

We could possibly put a nurse full-time in Gaultois for that million dollars. We

could do many things that we would like to do. We could probably put

physiotherapy in. They have, I think, about eight or ten long-term people in

that hospital now sitting around in chairs. When you are in a long-term facility

you need more than just nursing care. That is your life. It is not like a

hospital where you are going to be discharged. You need care, you need

recreation, you need physiotherapy, you need a good long-term life. It is a

question of critical mass. Can you do it for eight people? Do you need thirty or

forty people? What is the critical mass? I do not know what the answers to these

are. Some people say you can do it with a small number, and some people say you

need 100 like the Stephenville Crossing home, a beautiful home over there, too.

It is hard to say what is required. I do not want to ramble too long, Mr.

Speaker. I do say I will support the petition and when funds are available we

will certainly move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Order l.

MR. SPEAKER: Order l. Address in Reply.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have this opportunity to comment on the Speech

from the Throne delivered by the Lieutenant-Governor here on Thursday. As all

members of the House realize while the Lieutenant-Governor read the speech it

was actually written by the Premier and his ministers. It was actually the

assessment of the state of the Province of the Premier. Mr. Speaker, that

assessment is dismal indeed. The Speech from the Throne basically offers no hope

to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It gives a pessimistic account of the

financial affairs of the Province. Listening to those words, words which

essentially had been given by the Premier on Province-wide television the night

before, made me think of a receiver. Basically we have a Premier who is

functioning as a receiver, as an accountant sent in by the banks to shut down

the place. When the Premier rose and spoke following the Lieutenant-Governor's

reading of the Throne Speech the Premier revealed something more of his own

outlook. The Premier admitted to managing decline. For the last four years the

Wells administration has indeed been managing decline, managing very poorly but

contributing to and precipitating the decline. We have had a free-fall decline

of our economy. We have had a decline of our health care services. We have had a

decline of our educational offerings. We have had a terrible rise in the

unemployment rate, in the social assistance roles. We have lost more than 10 per

cent of our jobs.

How ironic, the Wells administration campaigned on the

slogan, 'real change.' When the administration came to office four years ago we

had over 200,000 jobs in this Province. What do we have today? We have 180,000.

Do we have that many left? We are losing jobs every other day, sad to say. We

have more than twice as many people on welfare now as were on social assistance

four years ago. The number, including children, women and men, must be over

70,000 today. We all know that well over 20,000 people are getting federal

fisheries compensation. The 20,000-plus on the so-called package are not

factored into the calculation of our unemployment rate. It is a dismal

situation, Mr. Speaker.

The Speech from the Throne outlines contributing factors.

Contributing factors have included mismanagement by the Wells Administration;

lack of initiative in stimulating the economy; oppressive taxes loaded onto

businesses operating in the Province -all the more discouraging for Newfoundland

resident businesspeople.

Mr. Speaker, this government has discouraged employment in

Newfoundland and Labrador. This government's fiscal measures have made it more

and more tempting for businesses to shift people away from Newfoundland and

Labrador and over to the Maritimes. The result is that we have lost more than 10

per cent of the jobs we had four years ago. We have more than twice as many

people on welfare. We have an unemployment rate officially determined at about

22 per cent. Outside of that we have over 20,000 people getting federal

fisheries compensation.

It is a very depressing set of statistics. What does the

Premier suggest to counteract these negative trends - four years of steady

deterioration? What does the Premier suggest? He suggests more studies and

committees of bureaucrats. That is the best he can come up with. The hope Clyde

Wells offers for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is committees of civil

servants, a joint committee of federal and provincial bureaucrats to work

together on our economic problems, and more studies.

When the Liberals campaigned for election four years ago,

they said we had been studied to death, that Newfoundland and Labrador's

problems had been studied to excess. They shouted there was a need for action.

Now, they, the same as others in the Province, had the benefit of the House

Royal Commission Report on Unemployment and Employment, which had been published

a couple of years earlier. Soon after the election, on taking office, the

Premier promised a strategic economic plan, a recovery plan, within days. What

did we get? - months later, a recovery commission and a Liberal patronage pork

barrel called Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. That served the purpose of

employing displaced Liberal campaign managers, campaign workers, and defeated

candidates, alright, but it hasn't done much to improve the economy of this

Province. It has run up government debt, and what does it have to show for the

public spending? - jobs for some Liberals, a drain on everyone else.

Then, the Premier retreated by saying that there had to be a

strategic economic plan prepared following consultation. He struck committees,

sent them across the Province, they held public hearings. Lo and behold, in June

of 1992, more than three years after his administration had come to power, he

published a Strategic Economic Plan. That plan basically repeated the main

recommendations and observations of the House Royal Commission Report which had

come out some five years earlier.

What is he saying in this Throne Speech? It is not a plan at

all, it is only half a plan. Now, he needs to do a Strategic Social Plan. He

forgot about half the exercise, forgot to have Doug House and Harold Lundrigan

do the full exercise three years ago, so we need a strategic social plan.

Now, here we are, on the eve of another election. So the

Premier is expecting the people of the Province to believe that he needs more

time to complete the studies, to have more committees, to have more

consultation, to come up with some ideas about how we are going to reverse the

terrible descent.

He acknowledged in his speech here on Thursday afternoon that

he has been managing decline, and he has offered no hope for reversal of that

trend - no hope for incline, more decline, more committees, more studies. He

only did half the study.

So where was the action? Well, the government has basically

paid out more and more and more public money for welfare. This government seems

to have a policy of preferring welfare to work. The government reduced spending

on employment projects, or community development projects, while it increased

spending on welfare.

Today, in this Province, we have hundreds and hundreds of

people who have been used to working, who have employment skills, who want to

work, who have no alternative but to be on welfare. These are people who would

be much happier taking

part in government-sponsored employment projects with

legitimate public purposes' projects that are planned and supervised, but this

Wells Government is not giving them that alternative. Instead, the Wells

Government is simply paying out welfare. And, Mr. Speaker, the government has

structured the social assistance regulations in such a way that it is very

difficult for people who have had to resort to social assistance to ever break

out of the welfare track.

In Question Period today - today, International Women's Day -

once again, I pointed out to members opposite how regressive was their October

1990 policy change of categorizing child support and maintenance as

non-allowable income for purposes of calculating social assistance entitlement.

Mr. Speaker, the regulations provide an incentive, but it is

too little an incentive for social assistance recipients to supplement their

income. The regulations allow people to benefit up to a maximum of only $115 a

month through working, and the regulations used to provide that incentive for

getting income from an absent parent; but, as of October 1990, the regulations

require a dollar for dollar subtraction of child support.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it had only been a few months earlier than

that, in May, 1989, when the previous PC Government opened the Support

Enforcement Agency, which is a division of the provincial Department of Justice.

That office has been very effective and successful in enforcing court orders for

child support - orders that require absent parents, usually fathers, to pay for

the support of their children - but just a few short months after that Support

Enforcement Agency was up and running and producing good results, the government

took away the benefit from the neediest people - from single parents and their

children on social assistance.

Now, in the short term, the government probably saved a small

amount of money - perhaps as much as $100,000 a year - perhaps; but, Mr.

Speaker, when I say that figure I am thinking out loud. I have never been able

to find out actual numbers. I have asked several times but I have been deprived

information about the financial effect of that regulation change. I do know that

the immediate drop in income from the social assistance recipients affected was

a maximum of $115 a month. There might have been about 1,000 families hurt.

Mr. Speaker, over the medium to long term, that change is not

saving the government an appreciable amount of money, because it has taken away

the incentive for people on social assistance to even try to get court orders

for child support. Now, there is no reason for them to go through the hassle of

a court application or to put any real effort into convincing a judge that they

need support, because they are not going to benefit. Every dollar they get in

the way of child support is going to be deducted from social assistance. They

will be worse off, Mr. Speaker, because the social assistance and support

enforcement systems are not perfectly synchronized, and there are social

assistance recipients who get child support from the Support Enforcement Agency

sporadically; they might get it in January and February, but suddenly, in March,

the payment doesn't come in to the Support Enforcement Agency on time, and there

is a gap then, when the beneficiaries, the single mother and children, aren't

getting a cheque from the Support Enforcement office and, of course, neither are

they getting the money from social assistance. So the result of this change has

been a great hardship for some of