May 22,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 54

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to

announce the appointment of the first full-time Chair of the Newfoundland Labour

Relations Board. Ms. Linda Black, LL.M., currently the Assistant Deputy Minister

of Labour will take up the duties of Chairperson of the Labour Relations Board

effective the 1st of August this year. Ms. Black has been Assistant Deputy

Minister of Labour since 1988 and prior to that was a solicitor with the Civil

Division of the Department of Justice and with the Office of the Legislative

Counsel. Ms. Black received her legal training at Dalhousie University

graduating in 1975 and received her Masters of Law Degree from the University of

Ottawa in 1977. Ms. Black brings with her a great deal of experience and

commitment as she assumes the duties of her new position.

I am also pleased to announce that Mr. Dennis Browne,

currently part-time Chair of the Labour Relations Board, and a partner with the

Law Firm of French, Browne and Dodd has agreed to continue to provide his

expertise and experience to the Labour Relations Board as Vice-Chair. Ms.

Black's and Mr. Browne's appointments are both effective August 1, 1991.

In addition to these appointments I am also announcing the

appointment of a second Vice-Chair to the Labour Relations Board. Mr. James

Oakley, a partner with the Law Firm of Noonan, McGrath, Oakley and Orr, has been

appointed as Vice-Chairperson of the Labour Relations Board. Mr. Oakley has

considerable experience as an Arbitrator within the Province and is well known

to the labour relations community. His appointment is effective immediately.

These appointments to the Labour Relations Board occur as a

result of recommendations from the labour movement and employer organizations

within the Province. The Legislative Review Committee which has recently

concluded a review of various pieces of labour legislation in the Province has

also recommended that a full-time Chair be appointed to the Labour Relations

Board. I believe these appointments indicate the importance attached by this

Government to improving the quality of labour relations services provided by the

Labour Relations Board.

I am confident that with the appointment of these three

individuals, the Labour Relations Board will be well equipped to render a timely

and effective service to the community it serves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all, let me thank the Minister for the advanced copy

of her statement and secondly, let me say to her as well there is very little

criticism I could offer on this particular statement. It is a positive move and

Ms. Linda Black certainly brings to that position a lot of experience especially

on two fronts, one being a very experienced lawyer and secondly, of course,

being the former Assistant Deputy Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

which will, I think, enable her to carry out her duties in a most effective and

capable manner. The Minister points out as well these appointments come about as

a result of recommendations that were made to Government from the unions and

from employer groups as well. However, there is one thought I would leave with

the Government for future consideration. Maybe the time has now come in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to give consideration to giving tenure to

the Chairperson of the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board in much the same way

as the Auditor General functions in the Province so that there can be no doubt

that the individual functioned with the same judicial objectivity that is

appropriate to the position, as the Auditor General functions in the House of

Assembly, especially when an individual has to deal with public service and

public sector unions whose employees are largely employees of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it is a positive move and I will say

that we now have two positions, in black and brown, but if Government continues

its assault on the public sector unions of the Province it will not be long

before the Government will be black and blue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my absence I

understand that the Minister of Health showed very little concern for the exodus

of doctors that is taking place all over this Province. It is fair to say also,

I think, that we have always had a problem attracting and holding an adequate

number of medical specialists. There is no doubt about that. Over the last nine

months it appears that since this Government announced its intention to freeze

budgetary spending for health care nine months ago the problem seems to have

become extremely critical. Now, the Minister would know, I suspect, that the

recommended minimum ratio of private practice psychiatrists to population is one

in ten thousand and that would require in Newfoundland fifty-nine

full-time psychiatrists in private practice. Can he tell this House whether it

is a fact, or not, that we are now down to a total of thirty-four psychiatrists

and that in fact we have the equivalent of only twenty full-time psychiatrists

in private practice which means we are meeting only one third of the minimum

need, and the problem appears to be worsening? Can he confirm those numbers and

can he tell us what he intends to do about it?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, not exactly. It is even a little

worse than the hon. Member suggests. We are down to thirty-three

psychiatrists in the Province. I cannot confirm how many of

them are full-time or how many are half-time but he was close with his

thirty-four so he is probably close with his twenty.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member suggests that there is no

concern on the part of Government for this; I think the hon. Member is

misreading what the Government is saying. We are not trying to use the situation

in this Province to make any political gains, we are not trying to act like

alarmists, we are not trying to panic; the fact of the matter is, that over the

years it has been extremely difficult to retain psychiatrists in this Province.

There is a programme at the University where we try to train

fourteen people at a time and hopefully have them stay on, but the whole issue

is larger than just psychiatrists; there is the whole issue of mental health

which includes psychiatrists, occupational therapists, nurses who are trained in

psychiatry and social workers. The whole issue is under review by this

Department; there is no point for us to get our fifty-nine or sixty

psychiatrists unless we have a backup in place, whereby we can assist those

people; Mr. Speaker, the whole issue is under review and it is an issue that

Government is gravely concerned about, but, we are by no means going to panic,

we are going to deal with it in the same, methodical, reasonable approach that

we take in dealing with all the problems we found when we took over this

Government.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, finally we got

the Minister to admit that there is a problem, at least with the psychiatry

specialty. May I ask him about some other specialty and see if he can confirm

this for us as well.

Until recently, we had two orthopaedic spinal surgeons in

this Province, one in St. John's and one in Corner Brook; can he confirm now

that the orthopaedic spinal surgeon for St. John's, Dr. Perkins, has in fact,

left this Province and what is he doing about that problem?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we live in a democratic country

and if a-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - doctor or an engineer or a nurse or a

janitor or anyone wants to pack up and leave this Province, there is no

mechanism in place whereby we can force people to stay here. You cannot go to an

orthopaedic surgeon and say: you are forced, you are sentenced now to spend the

rest of your days in this Province, so, Mr. Speaker, we cannot force people to

stay; we try to make available to our doctors various perks and we try to pay

them as best we can, however, I can tell the hon. Member, that if we ever get

into a price war for doctors, we will lose, because the fact of the matter is,

this is a poor Province, this is a have-not Province and if it becomes a price

war, we cannot compete with Nova Scotia, let alone Ontario, let alone Florida,

let alone New York.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister this

serious situation, a critical situation really has occurred during the last nine

months when this Government announced its policy back last September or October.

Now let me ask him this if he is not concerned about that

area of specialty, can he confirm that the only paediatric heart surgeon in this

Province left the Province just a couple of months back and he is, in fact,

being flown back to this Province to hold clinics, and presumably that is

extremely costly. I can tell him why he left, he left because of what this

Government is doing in health care, that is why he left.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Can the Minister tell me I am wrong? I will

quote the gentleman's name shortly and then the Member for St. John's South can

tell me if we are wrong. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister also tell us that in this

particular kind of a situation the paediatric heart surgeon, the only one in the

Province is gone - if a child needs to have any kind of emergency heart surgery,

presumably he or she, that child, must be sent outside the Province. Who pays

for that cost? Can he tell us if it is the patient who is expected to pay or is

MCP going to pay?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, any service which the Province

is not capable of delivering at a given time, there is a provision made for

Medicare to pay the expenses of the patient who has to be referred out of the

Province. The paediatric heart surgeon recruiting is continuing, to have that

person replaced. Hopefully in the not too distant future we should be able to

recruit someone.

Now in the case of an emergency - a severe emergency, it is

desirable and it is good to have paediatric heart surgeons who specialize in

operating on children, however the fact of the matter is that a heart surgeon

who does adults, in an emergency could certainly attend to children, so there is

no point for people being overly alarmed. The normal surgery will be done either

by some other doctor in the system or someone is going to be sent out. But I

would tell the hon. Member that contrary to what he would like for people to

think, the fact is that it has not been proven yet that we have lost a single GP

or a specialist because of the cutbacks in the health care system, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. Member has any doubt about that I would suggest he talk to the

Newfoundland Medical Association, because, even if a medical doctor were going

to leave this Province, it would take anywhere from six months to two years for

him to make the move. So the people who have moved now obviously must have

started to prepare for their move maybe six or eight months or a year ago.

Now, I cannot guarantee that as a result of what is happening

in health care, we will not lose some people. I cannot guarantee that. I can

say, categorically, that up to this present minute there has been no conclusive

proof that any doctor has left because of the restructuring of the health care

system.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of

Health some questions along the same lines, as well. And I can not believe the

Minister, in his answer to the Member for Grand Falls, still will not

acknowledge that we have doctors leaving this Province. I am not sure the

wording is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, but this morning we had a doctor call our

office and say that the Minister, in his statement yesterday, was lying through

his teeth, that doctors are leaving this Province because of the health care

cuts.

I want to quote the Minister, yesterday, because some days I

think the Minister forgets that what he said yesterday can get back to us

through Hansard and through videotapes of news telecasts and what have you.

Yesterday, the Minister said the following: I suppose there could be many

solutions to doctors leaving the Province, but one thing we are not going to do

is guarantee people that they can make $500,000 a year. We have a limited amount

of money and we simply cannot pay extremely high, exorbitant amounts of money to

any professionals in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is really cheap politics on behalf of the

Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was `Winse'.

MR. POWER: That was the President of Treasury Board.

Well, I will ask the President of Treasury Board to answer that question. Will

he confirm - if he does not know he should find out from the Minister of Health:

Here are the average salaries of general practitioners in this Province. The

average is $130,000 to $140,000, the overhead is approximately 30 per cent of

that amount, and, on average, they clear around $98,000 to $100,000. Those are

the figures given to us by the Newfoundland Medical Association.

Will the President of Treasury Board acknowledge that

yesterday he was absolutely wrong, and, by giving the impression that doctors

were making $500,000 a year, he has, in effect, maligned all doctors in this

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. the

Member for Ferryland was yesterday when my colleague, the President of Treasury

Board, made the statement about the $500,000. I understood it perfectly well,

and I was not even in my seat, I was coming into the House after being

interviewed.

What the President of Treasury Board said was practically the

same as I said, we cannot get into a price war, and if we have to guarantee a

specialist $500,000 or $600,000, in order to keep him, then we cannot enter into

that league. That is what the hon. the President of Treasury Board said. I

understood it; it was perfectly clear, and to every single Member on this side

of the House, it was perfectly clear. Now, if the hon. member did not understand

it, it must be the hon. member's problem.

Mr. Speaker, the doctors' salaries in this Province were

tabled in the House of Assembly about a month ago, in the Newfoundland Medicare

Report. Some doctors make as low as $50,000 or less in this Province. Two or

three doctors make in excess of $500,000. I think the highest is $640,000. There

are 900 doctors who make somewhere in-between the $640,000 and the $50,000. If

someone says $130,000 to $150,000, I will not deny or admit right now, but it is

only a simple matter to set down; I think, probably, the take-home pay, after

expenses, is somewhere in the $135,000 to $150,000 range.

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

supplementary.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of

Health does he know the answer to this simple question: This Province has had a

very major problem in psychiatry over the past couple of years. Psychiatrists,

on average, gross about $220,000 and they net about $150,000. Why cannot this

Minister, to solve this serious health problem, have a recruitment program that

does not require $500,000 a year guarantees, as the President of Treasury Board

said yesterday? Why can we not have a recruitment program to get psychiatric

professionals in this Province at a lot less than $500,000?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a good suggestion. The

unfortunate thing is, it is two-and-a-half years late, or however long we have

been here. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we had people recruited last year,

twenty-eight psychiatrists, Mr. Speaker, people ready to move to this Province

to take up practice, for reasonable salaries, too, I would tell the hon. Member.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have an Immigration Department which

this Province has no control over. That became a problem. We have a Newfoundland

Medical Board which has to license physicians who practice in this Province.

Over a year and a half we were able to license and get through immigration two

psychiatrists, out of twenty-eight we got two, so it is not a simple matter, Mr.

Speaker. It is something that we have been trying to do, but I am becoming more

and more convinced that recruitment is not the way to do it. We have to continue

the program which was in effect even when the hon. Member's party was in power,

we have to continue the program at the university whereby we are training our

own people who are prepared to stay here. Even in doing that we are still having

problems with retention. So it is not a simple problem. We are working on it. It

is a broad problem as I said in my earlier answer which was in answer to an

earlier question which was quite similar. We had to also deal with the support

staffs, support services so that when we recruit we have to be able to retain

the psychiatrist, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the

Minister. He is now sort of blaming the fact that we have a shortage of

specialists on our Immigration Department and on anything that is outside of his

control. One of the reasons that we have a shortage of some specialists in this

Province has to be the rate of remuneration given to those specialists. Will the

Minister confirm that we do need more specialists in this Province and will he

go back to his Cabinet colleagues to try and get some extra money before the

health care system in this Province is totally devastated?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am sort of amazed at the lack

of knowledge that the health critic has of the way that doctors are paid. Let's

hope that the day never comes that if they ever do get Government let's hope

that Premier Verge will not put him in the health portfolio, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, doctor's salaries are paid - the

Newfoundland Medical Association decides which particular sector gets an

increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in a given year the Newfoundland

Medical Association will negotiate with Medicare for their increase in pay,

ultimately Government will decide. Last year the increase in pay was in the

vicinity of 3 - 5 per cent or something like that. So the Newfoundland Medical

Association then decides which particular group of physicians need a larger

increase. I think last year it was psychiatrists. Their increase was 6.8 percent

and I stand to be corrected on that. But there were other physicians who got an

increase which was less than 1 per cent. So over the years that approach has

been used as well, Mr. Speaker.

But the fact of the matter is, as the President of Treasury

Board has said and as I have said, and as many people have said before, that it

is more than a matter of throwing money at the problem. That is not the total

solution. And if that is the solution then we have a real problem. Because once

you start a price war, once you start a money war, we are doomed to lose. The

solution is to train more of our own people, to try to get the support services

in place, which we have been working slavishly at. There was absolutely nothing

in place when we took over. And we have been trying to put those support

services in place. It has not been easy. Because in addition to the difficulty

we are having recruiting these people, we also have a Province which was

practically put bankrupt by the previous administration and that is making our

task even more difficult.

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

MR. DOYLE: I have a question for the President of

Treasury Board. The Sunday Express this weekend reprinted the text of the

Minister's speech in January to the St. John's Board of Trade where the Minister

talked about the Provincial Government's dependency on the Federal Government

for transfer of payments. And the Minister said, quote: we must never forget

that when you depend on someone else to give you something there is always the

possibility that they will take it away.

Now the Minister should know that it is more than provinces

that depend upon Government to live up to their word. My question for the

Minister is: will the Minister now tell the House of Assembly how dealings with

the public service unions have been going since the Government under Bill 16

took away what the public employees depended on from the Provincial Government

to give them?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member when he quotes

what I said in that speech obviously is telling the truth, he is absolutely

right. That is the situation. And the situation very simply put is this: over

the past - ever since Confederation, I guess - we have developed too great a

dependency on outside sources of funding. We have not developed in this Province

the proper infrastructure to provide for our people what our people deserve. We

have grown year after year to be more and more dependent on money from outside,

and Members opposite have to take some of the blame for that. They were there

for seventeen years.

So when the screws are put on the funding from outside we

have no choice. At that point in time we have no choices. We then are not

getting the money coming in, therefore we cannot spend the money. We cannot go

out and borrow any more than a minimal amount because our credit rating will

drop and then we probably will not be able to borrow any money. So we are in a

bind. What the hon. Member says is absolutely right. If we do not get the money

coming in then we have no money to spend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: My question to the Minister was: how is

Government getting along with the public sector unions now? And the Minister

chose to ignore my question. On a supplementary: Having implied at a recent

Rotary luncheon that NAPE president Fraser March had lied to the people of the

Province, and in light of the more recent revelation that the unions were not

leaked Budget information, that the layoffs and wage freezes were a fait

accompli, will the Minister now admit that an apology from him to Fraser March

is very much proper and a reasonable prerequisite to healthy union negotiations

in this Province.

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to confirm for the Member

opposite, and for all Members opposite, of course, that the description of the

process that took place leading up to the Budget was accurately given by this

Government and we stand by every single word of it. Since that time, I believe,

we have signed a couple of union contracts. We have reached agreement with one

major union in particular since that period of time and -

MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the people in the gallery that

they are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way, nor to show their

approval or disapproval of any proceedings in this House. Should this continue

then the Chair will have no alternative but to ask the people who are in the

gallery to leave.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To conclude, we have been absolutely truthful every step of

the way.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Your Honour could

tell the House what Your Honour is talking about. I mean to interrupt Question

Period because there were disturbances in the gallery, is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there was a disturbance.

MR. SIMMS: We are not aware of any disturbance in the

gallery.

People have a right to sit in the gallery and attend the

House, do they not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order raised by the hon. Member. The

Chair had noticed what had taken place in the gallery and the Chair made the

decision that it was not to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was taking place?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members on this side all know what has

taken place.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To reiterate: our description of the process leading up to

the Budget was absolutely accurate. We told the truth every step of the way and

we make no apology for it. Since that time we have reached agreement with at

least one major union in this Province and the contract will be signed within

the next couple of days. Time will tell what relations with the labour unions

will be like in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is going to have to ask the people who are in the

gallery, carrying out this display, to please leave the gallery.

MR. SIMMS: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think

Your Honour might wish to reconsider that direction. I do not believe Your

Honour has the authority to order certain people to leave. He has the authority

to clear the gallery if he wishes but that is not what he did.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Chair will ask the commissionaires

to clear the gallery, please.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Will the President of the Kremlin confirm that

the Government is already in the process of developing a priority list for

future cuts in the 1992 Budget? Will he at this time before the process goes a

little bit too far work with the unions instead of throwing them out of the

galleries of the Province, work with the unions on alternatives to layoffs and

salary rollbacks?

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

MR. BAKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, we know what the silly

little game was. Now, we all know.

Mr. Speaker, just about everything the hon. Member said is

not true. He is trying to create some kind of a scare now. Trying to create the

situation or trying to pretend that Government is now in the throes of another

major cutback and layoffs, he is trying to create that scare in the Province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me assure this honourable House that we are not in the

process of any such thing. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is all just a part of the hon.

Member's silly little game that he has planned for today. I congratulate him. It

will probably get him some coverage in the press, and I am sure he is starved

for that kind of coverage.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the public sector unions

in the Province, which was really the crux of his question, is that as I have

indicated we have just completed negotiating a contract with a major public

service union, this contract will be signed at the end of this week, I believe

on Friday. Mr. Speaker, we have announced in the Budget that sometime soon we

have to sit down with the unions to discuss the indexing of the pension plan,

that we have plans to consider to look at the possibility of indexing the public

service pension plans and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time we

will start these negotiations and everybody will work for the betterment of the

public service workers of this Province. I am absolutely certain that will

happen.

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

MS. VERGE: I have questions for the Minister of Health.

Doctors usually have not charged for services that are not

insured under MCP. Can the Minister confirm that this practice has been

discontinued, that doctors, in order to make up some of their lost incomes, are

now billing patients directly for these uninsured services? Has the Minister's

Department reviewed this NMA, Newfoundland Medical Association, fee schedule?

Has he estimated the annual cost of these services to senior citizens and other

individuals?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I brought a note and pen, I wonder could she

speak a little more slowly so I can write them down because I want -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Minister

knows full well what I was asking; he might have needed a bit more time to

collect his thoughts. I am asking him about doctors charging patients and third

parties for services that are not insured under MCP, I am asking him about this

Newfoundland Medical Association publication with a suggested C range, and I am

asking him about the impact on patients, particularly, senior citizens, of these

new charges. Is he concerned, for example, that these charges may prevent senior

citizens from obtaining adequate health care?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have most of them down, I

think, and I will try to address them. Now, the uninsured services that the hon.

member is talking about - I am appalled at their lack of knowledge of what is

going on in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when a medical doctor is running

his practice, oftentimes, someone who wants to have life insurance comes in, a

perfectly health person, all he needs is a medical for his life insurance to

prove that he is a healthy person; that is an uninsured service and the doctor

deals directly with the patient. Drivers licences - some drivers licences

require a medical, the senior citizen one is paid for, but there are a lot of

things outside which are uninsured services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has come up with some copy

from the Newfoundland Medical Association, which I received, I think, a month

ago. I also tell her, there is a big sheet posted in some doctors' offices,

which makes it perfectly clear as to the system, just what is paid for and what

is not.

Uninsured services is not new; I remember having medicals,

myself, for insurance, twenty years ago -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - twenty years ago, Mr. Speaker, and I had to

pay for the medical, so there is no change in that. There is no great impact on

senior citizens. Senior citizens are only required to have the driver's licence.

I remember, when I was in Opposition, the previous administration was charging

for that inspection; and the Minister of Social Services and I kicked up one

heck of a racket and forced them into changing it so that senior citizens get a

free examination. There is no major impact on senior citizens, if there were,

this listening Government would sit down and try to work something out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following

motion:

Whereas Canadians consider our Medicare programme the

centrepiece of our social programmes and central to our national identity, and

it is viewed worldwide with respect and envy; and

Whereas fundamental to the national medical care programme

are the five principles of public administration, comprehensiveness,

Whereas the national medical care programme is under threat

through deteriorating financial and political support from the Government of

Canada and some provincial governments;

Be it resolved that the House of Assembly affirm the

principles of the national Medicare programme and direct the Government to take

such active measures as may be required to protect these principles from

erosion, including resisting changes to the Canada Health Act and the promotion

of appropriate amendments to the Constitution of Canada that would guarantee the

five principles.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday, the

hon. the Opposition House Leader asked me a question relating to a pension

policy in the Government by which a redundancy pensioner who accepts contractual

service, continues to receive the redundancy pension, as well as related

employment benefit. He wondered about a recent letter that the Minister of

Education had sent out to the chairpersons or presidents of provincial

institutes and community colleges, which in effect suggested, or told them, that

employees who are in receipt of redundancy pensions should not normally be

re-engaged in any capacity to undertake work on behalf of a college or

institute. He asked me if there was a conflict between the Minister's letter and

the pension policy of the Government. I would like to respond, Mr. Speaker, that

there is no conflict, whatsoever, between the two positions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on

behalf of approximately 570 public servants who work in the Confederation

Building, both the east and west wings. They number nearly 600. Now, I do not

know how many employees work in Confederation Building, in total, maybe the

President of Treasury Board knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: A couple of thousand, I suppose?

AN HON. MEMBER: About that.

MR. SIMMS: So, it is a significant number of those who

work in the building, here and in the other building, east and west.

The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is as follows:

Whereas smokers always had a right, in the past, to free

access to smoking in the work place, and

whereas most smokers recognize the

rights of non-smokers to a smoke-free environment, therefore

be it resolved that

our employer recognize that smokers have rights, too; and be it further resolved

that in the interest of satisfying both interest groups, the employer establish

smoking areas within the work place which have ventilation to the outside.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a contentious issue,

those who are non-smokers and smokers. But I must point out, for the benefit of

all members on both sides of the House, that this petition has been signed, not

only by smokers, but by many non-smokers, people who understand the rights of

other people. So, it has been signed by non-smokers as well as smokers.

MS. VERGE: Such as yourself.

MR. SIMMS: I am getting to that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, also, since this is a

non-partisan petition, it has been signed by a number of MHAs on the Government

side. I cannot call them by name. I will mention them by district. The Member

for LaPoile has signed this petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, there is a Bill Ramsay that signed it, I

am sorry, but I will assume he did. The Member for Placentia signed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now, I say to the Member for LaPoile, he did

not sign it as the Member for LaPoile, there is a Bill Ramsay's name there, that

is all I am going by.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, if you want to, that is fine, but the

Member for Placentia admits he signed it. The Member for Harbour Grace signed

it. The Member for St. George's signed the petition, and I am told the Member

for Mount Scio - Bell Island signed it.

MS VERGE: What about the Member for Bellevue?

MR. SIMMS: Of course, on this side of the House, the

former Minister of Education, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, signed it.

I have signed it. I do not know if anybody else on this side has signed it.

MS VERGE: Not me.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the issue here, as the petition

points out, is one of rights. Now, I am a reformed smoker. I am fifty-three

days, now, Mr. Speaker, without a draw.

MS VERGE: Who is counting?

MR. SIMMS: But who is counting? Your Honour knows the

importance of the issue, because Your Honour, I believe, has the odd puff from

time to time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pounds.

MR. SIMMS: No, twenty-six pounds later, half a pound a

day, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, I intend to try to pursue the objective of

giving up smoking, as I believe the President of Treasury Board intends to, but

I do not know. There are those on his own side who confide in me and tell me

they are very suspicious of the President of Treasury Board. They do not think

he has the guts and the stamina to be able to hold out like the Opposition House

Leader has been doing for the last fifty-three days. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, all

jokes aside, it is a fact that smokers have rights, as well as non-smokers. Now,

what is really, I think, degrading in what has transpired since April 1, is

seeing public servants out front on the steps of Confederation Building, out

back on the steps of Confederation Building, and at the front entrance of the

west wing. I think they have been driven to look unprofessional. I do not think

they want to do it. They do not want to do that; but people who smoke need their

fix. They have a right to smoke, as much as those of us who do not smoke would

like to see them give it up, and maybe they will, one of these days. No doubt,

eliminating smoking in the offices has helped a lot of people. There is no

question about that. But, right is right, and I think, in support of the

petition, that the Government would be well-advised, for the sake of morale and

everything else - people feel silly going out on the steps to have a cigarette.

The Government should ask the Minister of Public Works to have a hard look at

trying to identify a room, perhaps in each of the buildings, somewhere, where

they can smoke. I know, down in the cafeteria in this building, for example, the

chap down there who runs the CNIB canteen would love to see smoking permitted

again. Business has fallen apart down there since they cut out smoking and since

taxes went up on cigarettes, and everything else, so maybe that room, I do not

know. I will leave it in the hands of the Government House Leader who is

responsible for personnel matters on behalf of the Government. Perhaps he could

have a chat with the Minister of Public Works, who is an avid non-smoker, and

maybe he might be able to convince him to treat the petition seriously, because

I think it should be treated seriously, and I support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the petition so ably

presented by the Member for Grand Falls. I was not one of the MHAs who signed

the petition. I did not see it around, actually. I knew it was around but I did

not go looking for it.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition for one very good reason.

If we had designated a smoking area in this building, both members of our caucus

and members of that caucus probably would not have had to go through a

month-and-a-half of pure torture, trying to work with both House Leaders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: That would certainly have been a benefit

of having a smoking room. Mr. Speaker, besides the jokes, I am quite proud of

the President of Treasury Board and the Opposition House Leader actually for

giving up smoking. I am a smoker actually, I have been known to hang on to the

other end of a pipe every now and then, and continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, not because I am a smoker but because I believe

it to be reasonable and fair to allow people who do not wish to give up smoking

an area in which they might go for once a day or a couple of times either in the

morning or afternoon, and have it properly ventilated so that it does not

interfere with those people who are irritate by cigarette smoke or pipe smoke. I

think, at least for the 570 people who signed that petition, it would make the

workplace a little more pleasant for them to go each day, they would probably be

a bit more content and probably be a little bit more productive, and increase

productivity a little bit. These are all probabilities, Mr. Speaker, but the

important thing with it all is to be fair to people who do not wish to interfere

with anyone else, but who wish to have a place to themselves properly

ventilated, so that if they want to go down and have a cigarette and give the

Minister of Finance, the Province, and Canada, exorbitant amounts of tax money,

then it is certainly up to them, Mr. Speaker. They are not interested in

interfering with anyone else, they just want some place to go where they might

have a cigarette from time to time during the day. I am sure it would make the

workplace at least for those people a little more pleasant.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two issues here. First of all, I am very pleased

that the Members who have spoken so far are in agreement with the fact that it

is better in the workplace if there is no smoking, if smoke is not being

circulated and so on. That is the first issue and obviously the main issue. The

inhalation of second hand smoke is a very serious problem and I am glad to see

that all Members agree with getting rid of it.

The second issue, however, is quite a different one. That is

the providing of special places for people who wish to smoke on their coffee

break or whenever it happens to be, lunch hour, or whatever. Mr. Speaker, that

was dealt with when the original announcement was made and the reason that has

not been put in place is because of money. It is very simply money. It seems to

me it would be expensive, first of all, to designate space, to try to find the

space and set it aside, and with 600 signatures there are probably 400 smokers

there, a room big enough to handle let us say one-quarter of them at a time, to

get that size of a space would be expensive. It would also be expensive to

remove that space from the general recirculating system in the buildings and to

put in their own system in that one room.

So, Mr. Speaker, essentially that was the reason why the

smoking rooms were not set aside. I would like to indicate to the Member

presenting the petition and through him to the people who signed it, I would

take the petition have a look at it again, go back over it and see if we can

find out how much it would cost to provide this service and think about it

again. We have no problems with doing that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have leave?

MR. HOGAN: I apologize for not getting to my feet earlier

but I thought the previous speaker was going to speak in support of the petition

and not against it.

Mr. Speaker, I also question the wisdom of the previous

speaker in saying that second-hand smoke affects people. It is not a proven

medical fact. I think research will tell you that over in southeast Asia

somewhere there was an experiment carried out whereby it was determined that

second-hand smoke could affect the health of others; however it reminds me of

the story that seven tons of baking soda eaten by a seven ounce mouse would

cause cancer or possibly cause cancer. It is a popular story that is told in the

health circles as it regards to smoke.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, just to ease the minds of my hon.

colleagues across the way, not only did I sign the petition, I went and looked

for the petition and it took me three weeks to find it so I could sign it, if

they have any hesitation about announcing my name in signing the petition. I

urge the Government House Leader or whoever else there is to search out a way of

alleviating the problems and the rights of smokers in the building or in all

buildings as far as that goes where they could have their occasional smoke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this is Wednesday and at 3:00 on

Wednesday we are supposed to get into a Private Member's resolution. I would

like to ask leave of the House to forgo Private Member's Day and to continue on

with Motion number 4 which has to do with the amalgamation issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have leave?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the Government has no motion

to bring to the House. I have given notice of a motion and I would ask whether

there is leave to have this motion debated this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member's resolution has

not been given adequate notice so I mean it is pretty difficult for Private

Members to have a chance to debate a resolution without even having seen it. It

is a little bit difficult, but we might consider having a look at it for next

Wednesday or something like that. You know, that might be something we could

consider as a caucus and maybe talk to the hon. Member about it. But I mean the

whole purpose of giving notice is so that Members have a chance to do some

research and do some preparation and all the rest of that, and I did not quite

hear the resolution. I heard some bits and pieces of it and it sounded fairly

important and fairly significant so one might want to take some time to think

about it. So it is not that we would oppose it or anything of that nature, in

fact we might even, if we looked at it, agree to pass it without debate. You

know, it might be as simple as that. But, I mean, you do need notice and that is

the purpose of notice in the Order Paper. In terms of the official request from

the Government House Leader, which is the one that we are dealing with, he rose

so we are dealing with his request. We would say that we have no difficulty with

this, the Government, as it has in the past - it is a Government day for Private

Member's Day today. This particular Wednesday is the Government Members motion.

There is no motion on the Order Paper. The Government wishes permission of the

House to carry on with debate on Bill 4, the amalgamation bill which is an

important issue and we have no difficulty with that bearing in mind, of course,

that today is Private Member's Day and there would not be a night sitting, it

would adjourn at 5:00 p.m. That is the only thing I would have to remind the

House of.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what has happened every other

time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the motion of which I gave

notice is almost in the nature of an emergency resolution, although it may not

qualify under parliamentary procedure as an emergency resolution, because it

deals with the whole issue of Medicare and the deterioration of Medicare in our

Province. Now the Opposition has raised all day today and yesterday the issues

of the deterioration of the medical care system here in Newfoundland, and the

motion is presented for debate for this afternoon. Now, what the hon. Member has

suggested is that perhaps this could be debated next week if the Member can

confirm that he would be prepared to - instead of having an official Opposition

Private Member's Day next week, then I would consider granting leave today for

the Government to withdraw its motion, but I am constantly being reminded in

this House, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a party, that I am only one person, I am

only an individual Member. But this is one of the occasions, Mr. Speaker, in

which a single Member is required to - whose consent is necessary for unanimous

consent. I am prepared to give it if there is an agreement that there will be an

opportunity for this to be debated before this session closes for the summer.

I know that the Government may not be in a position to do

that because the House may not be open for more than a week. Indeed it may even

be closed this week. But if there is an opportunity to give unanimous consent I

would certainly be prepared to do so if I can be assured that this very

important resolution, which is in a nature almost of an emergency resolution,

had an opportunity of being debated. Not next fall but this spring. So that is

my point of order. I do not know if the Government House Leader would like to

have a quick look at the resolution, but it has been given to the Clerk for

distribution, so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) to that, I do not want the hon.

Member to get the wrong impression. I mean, the hon. Member never even really

spoke to us about it. We did not see the resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: No one spoke to me about it.

MR. SIMMS: No, I know. But you are asking us. With

respect to the issue you are raising here, asking us if we would be prepared to

allow that resolution to go on next Wednesday's Private Member's Day, I say to

him, we have not even seen it. Number one. Number two, that would be a caucus

decision but I would be quite happy to take it to the caucus and discuss it. The

hon. Member is a private Member and we realize the situation he finds himself in

from time to time, you know. So we have no problem in discussing that kind of an

issue and raise it before the caucus, no problem at all. See if we can come to

some arrangement.

But in terms of the original point of order, which is what we

are debating, is the request from the Government House Leader. And I think I

have made myself clear on that.

MR. SPEAKER: So as the Chair understands it, has the

request made by the hon. House Leader for leave been granted?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some

misunderstanding. I indicated that we would agree to leave as long as the House

adjourns at 5:00 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. I mean, I said that. This is twice I have

said it. So that is the condition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: So we have leave to continue on the debate

of Motion 4, is it? Until 5:00.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HARRIS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) that is the case there is no leave

from us either, and the House has to adjourn obviously. There is no resolution

before the House.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is no leave of the House there is

no business before the House. Then I guess the House has no alternative but to

adjourn at this point.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at

2:00 p.m.