November 29, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 41

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I am pleased to welcome to the

Speaker's Gallery today the ten members of the Provincial Teen Tobacco Team.

These young men and women represent the youth component for the tobacco

strategy, and are from various regions across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is a very important day for the people of our Province. For years we

have understood the devastating effects of cigarette smoke on our health. We are

alarmed at the number of people who die every year because of this horrible

habit. At least 1,000 people alone will die in Newfoundland and Labrador this

year. Millions will die all over the world.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador takes this issue very seriously.

Today we are moving forward with a $900,000 commitment that we made early last

winter when we announced the formation of a provincial tobacco coalition. Today

we know this group as the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, or ACT. For

several months, ACT has been working diligently, and this morning at a news

conference in St. John's, ACT's chairperson, Ms Paula Ewing, and I launched

the Provincial Tobacco Reduction Strategy.

This strategy has four main goals: prevention, protection, cessation and

de-normalization. Education and communication is seen as a key strategic

direction to ensure all sectors are aware of a benefits of a healthy lifestyle

and the negative consequences of tobacco use. The strategy also outlines

directions concerning legislation, enforcement, and community support programs,

among others.

An important part of the overall tobacco strategy for the Province is the

youth component. On November 16 I announced the formation of a Teen Tobacco Team

who will work with me, officials from my department, and ACT on tobacco issues

of particular interest to youth. Today I am honored to present the members of

our first ever Teen Tobacco Team to the House of Assembly. They are seated, as

the Speaker pointed out, in the gallery.

These youth include: Josh Furneaux, St. John's; Jeremy Babstock, St. John's,

Kathy Reddy, St. John's; Victoria Burry, Clarenville; Jennifer Graham, Burin;

Tara Young, Springdale; Craig Loder, Sops Arm; Shirley Hill, NorthWest River;

Rachel Luther, St. Lewis; and Christopher Sheppard, Postville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This team will be a voice for all young people in our

Province on how to tackle tobacco issues. Our goal on this front is the

development of a Youth Tobacco Strategy for our Province. We look forward to our

new team for input and consultation in developing this strategy.

Members of our Teen Tobacco Team have been chosen with the assistance of many

organizations. These include: Big Brothers, Big Sisters; Boys and Girls Clubs of

Newfoundland and Labrador; Allied Youth; Class of 2000 Smoking Prevention

Program; FINALY, which is Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador Youth; Girl

Guides; Community Youth Networks; Labrador Inuit Health Care Commission; Health

Labrador Corporation; and Health and Community Services Eastern Division.

The efforts of these organizations have proved invaluable. They have chosen a

very dynamic team of youth who have committed themselves to addressing tobacco

issues.

I am sure all hon. members today will join me in congratulating ACT, the new

Teen Tobacco Team and the employees of Health and Community Services on their

work to make our Province a healthier one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the members of the tobacco team here to the House of

Assembly and congratulate them on taking the initiative to do something positive

to stamp out the effects of smoking on young people and the public in general.

It is at that level, it is the youth, that we have to listen to because that

is where it all starts. Not being dictated from the top down by adults trying to

tell us what is best for youth. It is youth themselves being proactive in the

process, and that is great to see.

I would also certainly like to say to the minister that at the same time this

announcement was made there was also an announcement made by this government

that they were going to sue the tobacco companies for untold millions of dollars

of costs on our health care system today. I have not seen anything in the

courts, or anything initiated to this particular point. I know British Columbia

has moved forward. Of course, we are familiar with what has happened in the U.S.

I certainly hope, I say to the minister, that the $65 million that we get in

tobacco taxes for the treasury of this Province is not a deterrent for

proceeding and taking direct positive action for the untold millions of dollars

of costs on our health care system today, and the agony and the anguish that

people have to suffer because of the effects of smoking today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Congratulations to the teens present here today. As we know, it is important

that we get the teens involved in fighting the use of tobacco. Tobacco companies

are targeting teens to try and get them hooked at an early age to ensure their

financial durability in the years to come.

The tobacco campaign that tobacco companies have taken in recent years has

been using more and stronger addictive materials in their cigarettes to make

sure that people have a more difficult time trying to quit. I think that

education, not legislation, is they key. Through education, I think we can

accomplish things that by and large we would not be able to do through any other

means. It is important that we have teens working with teens to try and

accomplish this and get it started. You never know; maybe, at the end of the

day, the teens can teach a few adults in our society a few smart things as well.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker,

earlier today I joined representatives of twenty community based organizations

to announce funding for the final series of demonstration projects for this

fiscal year under the Province's Strategic Social Plan. The amount of funding

for these twenty projects totals $687,000. Combined with projects already

awarded during the summer, Government has funded $1.2 million to community based

organizations.

Our government acknowledges the value of the contribution that community

based organizations make, not only to social development in their communities

but also to economic development. In fact, these organizations are one of the

major partners in implementing the Strategic Social Plan. That is why in May of

this year, I encouraged community organizations to adopt and support the

Strategic Social Plan by establishing new partnerships with each other and with

government. To facilitate this approach, we made available a $1.2 million dollar

fund which community groups could access for projects that explore new and more

effective ways of addressing social issues in their communities.

The response to this initiative was extremely high. We received 130 proposals

from communities throughout the Province. The overwhelming response speaks to

their desire to participate in future social and economic development. In

keeping with the goals and objectives set out by the Strategic Social Plan,

projects approach social and economic issues from a preventive and early

intervention perspective. Projects also focus on ways to invest in communities

to make them strong and viable.

I have included a

summary of the projects released today, for my colleagues

in the House, to give them an idea of the wide scope of issues being examined

and they types of initiatives we, as a government, are very proud to support.

After today, thirty-nine projects will be operating all over Newfoundland and

Labrador from St. John's to Harbour Breton, Port aux Basques to Twillingate,

Conception Bay North to North West River, and there are other points even more

distant. My colleagues and I look forward to some exciting and informative

outcomes from these initiatives when the projects are completed.

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the Strategic Social Plan is moving ahead.

The steering committee in the central region is making good progress. Comprised

of representatives from the regional health, education and economic development

boards, they are the catalysts for further engaging communities to participate

as full partners in the Plan. I was pleased to provide funding so the committee

could hire a regional planner to support and help the work of this committee.

Their regional planner is from Campbellton, Newfoundland, has a Masters Degree

in social work with an extensive background in community development, and

coincidently has returned home to Newfoundland from Ontario to work here. We

expect to bring the Plan to two more regions of the Province this winter.

Another integral part of the Plan is the Social Audit which is being designed

by the very capable people with the Newfoundland Statistics Agency and a working

group of the Premier's Council on Social Development. The Social Audit will

provide evidence based information to be used by government and community boards

in shaping future social policies and programs.

Our strong, prosperous future is based on healthy, educated, confident

people. The Strategic Social Plan and the Strategy on Jobs and Growth will help

to secure this future by engaging citizens at the community level to define

their needs and work together to meet the challenges in our communities and our

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to see that these twenty organizations got their funding today,

and these organizations are certainly to be commended on the work that they do.

The fact that so many people did not get funding means that there is a

significant number of people out there who are still falling through the cracks.

One of the statements in the minister's statement is, Our strong,

prosperous future is based on healthy, educated, confident people. Hungry

children cannot learn and cannot get educated. As long as we are having children

going to school hungry because food bank shelves are empty, and in many cases

when they get to school they remain hungry, in the absence of a universal school

lunch program, we will not attain strong, healthy, educated and confident

people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of these programs that people are undertaking are certainly very valid

and helpful, but I want to say that demonstration projects and pilot projects

are not the answer. We do know that some things work. The better futures program

has already proven itself as being successful. The special programs for single

parents have already proven themselves to be successful. A universal,

comprehensive school lunch program is guaranteed to ensure that school children

will have an opportunity to learn better.

We should start concentrating on implementing some of the things that we know

will work and will improve the ability of people in our communities and in our

Province to participate more fully in society. We should start working on them

and not just experiment with other ideas. Let's put the ideas that we know

will work to work, making our Province a better place to live.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy regarding the

discussions ongoing with Inco. I would like to ask him today... The minister

right now has the authority - or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has the

authority - to issue a mining lease or a milling lease to any company without

coming before the Legislature. The Minister of Mines and Energy can issue this

lease under the Minerals and Mine Act, with no requirement really for further

debate, only a Ministerial Statement. Any subsequent discussion from there would

be after the fact, and obviously of no real consequence if the decision is

taken.

I would like to ask the minister today, on behalf of the people of the

Province: Before any agreement is reached, or - if, sorry - if an agreement is

reached, is there a commitment from government - and can the minister explain if

there is or is not - will they bring any deal before this House before any mine

or milling lease is given to the company so it can be thoroughly debated and

seen by the people of the Province through the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is no.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He must be taking lessons from the Minister of Education in

Question Period.

What he is saying, then, is that any agreement that is reached between the

government and Inco, he will not and government will not bring it before this

Legislature for debate before it is signed. Is that what the Minister of Mines

and Energy is saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any agreement that is forthcoming will be done in accordance with the law of

the land.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister of Mines and Energy, you will not, on behalf of

government, bring any deal reached with Inco before this House for debate before

you sign it? Is that what you are telling the people of the Province, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker,

the minister is playing footloose and fancy free with the people's resources.

I would like to ask him this question - and his answers are wearing about as

thin as the elbows on the suit that he is wearing today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this: Friday, in the Legislature, the

Minister of Mines and Energy said that he has never said that - words were

important. I read Hansard. He said that words were important and that if he is

sensitive over words it is because he is. He indicated that he has never said,

anywhere, at anytime, that 100 per cent of concentrate will be here; but what he

has said is that full processing will occur. We have on the record of Hansard

where the Premier has said that no agreement will be reached unless 100 per cent

of the concentrate will be processed in this Province.

The question for the minister is this, and for government generally, and the

minister can answer on behalf of government: Is it a condition of the provincial

government, in its discussions and negotiations with Inco, that, before any deal

is signed, 100 per cent of the concentrate or of the ore will be finished here,

and that what will ultimately end up at the end of the process - of the full

processing - is a finished nickel product?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there have been enough answers given in the last week with respect to

everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador maybe, except the Leader of the

Opposition, understanding that the product that will leave Newfoundland and

Labrador will be nickel metal, the same as if it was done through a smelter and

refinery.

It was part of my answer last week. I expect he is the only person in

Newfoundland and Labrador who does not understand that. The product will be

nickel metal. There will be full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

any agreement that is entered into will be done according to any of the

requirements of the law in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

A final supplementary. I would like to ask the minister, with respect to the

issue of any taxation regime, equalization royalties: Will he make a commitment

from government to bring the details of any tax or royalty regime to the House

before a mining lease is approved by government with this possible deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Words are very important, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition will

try to misrepresent what I have answered here today. What I am saying with

respect to my answer is this: Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador will know

the details of any arrangement between the government and Inco. Now, whether

that happens when the Legislature is sitting, or whether it happens when the

Legislature is not sitting - it might be within days or weeks, it might be

months, or it might be years - I am not in a position to give a commitment that,

before any lease is given to Inco or anybody else, we would have to make sure

that the Legislature is in session, that the Legislature is convened, and that

it would have to be debated in the Legislature.

The laws of the land that require things to happen will be followed, and we

can only hope that we do have something to present to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador sooner rather than later.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, NEOS

has made an offer to purchase Fishery Products International. One of the

conditions of the proposal is that the Legislature remove existing constraints

on the ownership and operation of FPI before the end of the December or soon

after. Minister, do you plan to bring legislation to the House before we recess

for Christmas to rescind or amend existing legislation that places constraints

on the ownership and management of Fishery Products International?

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

MR. EFFORD: If I understand the question, do we plan to? No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, if government does not plan on

bringing legislation before the House in this sitting, does the government have

any intentions whatsoever of bringing in legislation, should another proposal be

made to the present government, to be brought back to this House?

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

MR. EFFORD: It is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker.

This is too serious an issue to be flippant about, and to give a hypothetical

answer to a hypothetical question. Simply put, this is the biggest public policy

with regard to the fishing industry that I have known about for quite a number

of years, and I am not going to take it lightly.

I just got back from the Northern Peninsula this morning, where I met with a

group of people. One of the mayors of one of the communities questioned me after

I left the meeting and said: What are you going to do with the NEOS proposal? I

said, we are waiting first of all for a full analysis of all of the things that

they are committing. I would like to see how they propose - the debt load that

they propose after they would take over FPI.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. At the same time, people, as this

mayor pointed out this morning, would like to have FPI coming into their

communities and telling them what their plans are for the future in each and

every community.

To say no to this proposal at this time, or to say yes to this proposal at

this time, no, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that. I want the fishing

industry to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the long term,

not for 2000-2001 but for the long term. This is too major a policy to take it

lightly, not to ask questions from all parties. Here we have FPI asking us to

lift the 15 per cent. We have the fishing industry as a whole saying, lift the

15 per cent. Why? Because it restricts a company from moving forward.

When I am ready to advise my Cabinet colleagues of all of the full analyses

of both parties, then and only then will we make a decision on what is in the

best interest of either one of the companies, or the people in particular - when

I say, in the best interests of the companies, what will benefit the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. EFFORD: - in this fishing industry for the long, long term.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to get a clear understanding here, Minister, because people are

concerned and we are talking about the future of people out in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes in

preambles we can lose the intent of what

the answer was.

I would like for the minister to be perfectly clear when he answers this

question. Did I correctly understand you when you said that there would be no

legislation tabled in this session of the House of Assembly looking at

rescinding the 15 per cent cap on Fishery Products International?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that there is not a full

understanding of the fisheries policy in the Party opposite, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Seriously.

I was just handed this a couple of minutes ago because I was gone all

morning. (Inaudible) obtained legislative approval to sell or transfer ownership

of its harvesting, processing or marketing units.

We have a restrictive policy of transfer, of harvesting or processing in this

Province. It is already here. We do not allow ITQs. Processing - if anybody

wants to transfer a processing license from one company to another, from a

community to another community, we say: You must come to provincial government.

We brought that policy in, in 1996.

Do we plan to bring in legislation in this sitting of the House of Assembly?

We do not have any plans to bring legislation in to change that rule in this

sitting of the House of Assembly.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he has

outlined his concerns with regards to the NEOS proposal in their representation

to take Fishery Products International...?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined my concerns to both FPI and NEOS,

but here is my real concern: Some of the opposition to the NEOS proposal is

based on personalities, and I have a real concern about that.

Such a major investment in the fishing industry in 1999, when only seven

years ago everybody in this Province thought the fishery industry was over - it

is gone, boys, it is gone - today we have a $900 million export. We have a group

of companies, regardless of who they are, willing to invest $280 million into a

fishing industry, and unless I ask all the questions and get all the answers

satisfactory to myself, as minister, to advise my Cabinet colleagues - but the

communities themselves, the mayors, the municipalities, should bring in both

sides to their communities and ask each one of them: What are your legitimate

plans for the future of my community?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer quickly.

MR. EFFORD: Do not pass it off on personalities, or not really

understanding the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Minister, sick people are waiting for several months to get diagnostic testing

such as CAT scans and MRIs. To get an urgent CAT scan, you have to wait two to

three months, and people have to wait over six months for MRIs. There are over

2,000 people on a waiting list now, and they do as little as 100 per week.

This is all happening when millions of dollars worth of machinery are lying

idle from early evening until the next morning. Minister, I am sure you are

aware of the increasing wait. I want to ask you: What actions are you proposing

to correct this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first question I would ask, in response to the question, is: Have you

spoken to the Health Care Corporation about some of the restrictions around

operating an MRI, for example, more than the current hours from 8:00 a.m. to

6:00 p.m.? First of all, there is the issue of staffing; second of all, there is

the issue of an equipment upgrade; and, third of all, it is about the life of

the whole machine.

I would say that emergent patients in this Province have MRIs performed

within a few hours. Urgent patients - and you know they are triaged and

classified - wait an average of four to six weeks. Elective patients wait

longer, sometimes six months. That is accurate. There are many factors involved

in looking at upgrading and increasing the utilization of any machinery in the

Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have spoken to the Health Care Corporation in response to your

question. In fact, the health care association, I asked them. They do not have a

budget for their health care from this department yet for this year. They do not

know what they are allowed to spend, I say to the minister.

I spoke on Friday with a lady who was diagnosed with lung cancer one month

ago. She now has to wait until the end of January to get a CAT scan before

anything can be done. Minister, that is three months. This woman is going out of

her mind waiting, knowing she has cancer. She, by the way, works in our health

care system. What do you say to this woman who cannot get the help she needs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to put a bit of fact in

with the

preamble that the member just raised. First of all, the boards do have

their budgets. They are waiting for the allocation of the remaining amount. If

you were to talk to the boards they will tell you that they have their budgets.

What they do not have is the remaining allocation of the $23 million.

With respect to the individual case, again, I would say to that person that

because she worked in the health care system she should not get any more special

treatment than anybody else, Mr. Speaker, and that she would be triaged.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You made a reference in your comments that she even

worked in the system, as though she should have some special waiting procedure.

Mr. Speaker, that is totally inaccurate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite know that people are

triage. Yes, it is no wonder we have problems with questions and insinuations

like that coming across the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have spoken to doctors and patients and people within the Corporation who

tell me that they have to wait two months to get an urgent CAT scan. I have

spoken to people, and medical doctors will tell you, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: When is the minister going to do something about the long

wait? This health report in Maclean's

took in sixteen cities in Canada. We were the third last. Halifax was third and

we were fourteen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. SULLIVAN: When is the minister going to do something to correct this

problem here so people can get the help they need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important again that the member opposite speaks to the Health

Care Corporation about the waiting times associated. Emergent patients have MRIs

performed within a few hours; urgent have four to six weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), no!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, that is the information that I have from

the Health Care Corporation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you better get your facts straight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Anybody can pick an individual case. When you are

dealing with 35,000or 40,000 people, hundreds of thousands of people a year, it

is no problem when (

a) you do not have to be responsible, and (

b) you do not

have to be accountable. You can pick anything and go for miles on it. Mr.

Speaker, the reality is that if you speak to the people who are in charge of the

waiting list they will tell you that emergent patients are done within a few

hours. They are triaged and done in consultation with specialists and nobody

gets put ahead of the line or behind the line.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You get the test based on the needs that are triaged by

the attending physicians.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

My question today is for the Minister of Health. I could not believe what I

heard here Friday morning. Quite frankly, I was a bit discussed with it actually

when the most senior Liberal caucus member spoke on Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The

Registered Nurses Act. While he spoke well, generally, of the health care system

I do have very serious concerns of where the Member for Terra Nova points the

finger at the cause for waiting lines.

Let me quote from Hansard where he was speaking on waiting (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that he cannot quote from any material.

MR. J. BYRNE: Generally speaking, what he said was that the waiting lines

in hospitals are due to the arrogance of doctors. I ask the minister: Do you

agree with the Member for Terra Nova that the arrogance of doctors is one of the

main reasons for delays and long waiting lists in the health care system? You

can look at page 1,540 of Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not prepared to comment on anything that anyone said if I have not read

it or seen it myself. I was not in the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr.

Speaker, I was attending ministers' meetings on Friday. I was not in the

House. I do not know to which the member opposite was reading from when he was

reading his question. I would have to comment on that. I like to get some

information before I make comments on any issue.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Let me say to the minister that she can read page 1,540 of the Hansard. The

Member for Terra Nova was speaking on waiting lines in hospitals and referring

to the arrogance of doctors.

Minister, with other provinces increasing salaries for doctors to recruit and

retain doctors, is it any wonder with an attitude of this type from government

members that this Province is having very serious problems recruiting and

retaining doctors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr.

Speaker, you know when there isn't an issue it is really good to create an

issue. I think we can only stand on our record. We negotiated a $32 million

collective agreement for the physicians. In addition to that, we have put rural

bonuses in place, we have had a recruitment plan in place. Last year, we had a

record number of our own graduates choose to stay and work in our Province.

I know the members opposite do not want to hear it. In fact, when the

Minister of Finance last week read that we had a credit upgrade they looked

depressed over there. They were upset. The reality is that we have been actively

recruiting, we have been working with the boards, and we are pleased that we are

doing the best we can.

Mr. Speaker, let me share this with you, and again this is something -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I will say, I attended a ministers' meeting last week. I heard from

physicians right across this country. While the members opposite would like to

think we have the monopoly on recruitment and retention issues, we do not.

Major, huge provinces in this country are having very difficult times

recruiting, particularly rural areas. We are continuing to work hard and we will

not be discouraged by comments like that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The Member for Terra Nova also referred to members on this side of the House

- and we have seen an example of it today - raising expectations in the public

by asking questions on health care in this House of Assembly.

I ask the minister: What did the Premier do two days before the election in

February when he came back from Ottawa with $40 million for health care for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador which turned out to be $3.6 million? Wasn't

that unduly raising the expectations of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador

with respect to health care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite read about the money

we have put in health care over the last number of years, we put much more money

in than we have actually gotten, there is no doubt about it.

I will say, while the members opposite might accuse us of raising

expectations, you can put it on your books that if anything happens to our

publicly funded health care system because of fearmongering and calling every

situation a crisis, let the record show they led the way in the downfall of our

publicly funded health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Madam

Minister, you are aware that in Labrador for the Air Ambulance Program, when

people have to be flown out by air and they are released from hospital, there is

no way back for them if they cannot travel by a regular airline seat. If they

are a stretcher case or if they for other reasons cannot sit for prolonged

periods, there is no way for them to get back home.

I ask the minister: Is she prepared to take immediate action to correct this

situation by guaranteeing their passage back on the air ambulance flight if they

cannot get back through any other means of airlines?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The air ambulance service in the Province really is run by my department,

although the Department of Health is a sort of a client department. It comes

through Works, Services and Transportation. All use of the air ambulance in the

Province is dictated by the doctors. If the individual's doctor says they must

travel by air ambulance, they will. In some cases, if there are patients in

hospitals in the Province, for instance in Corner Brook, St. John's, Labrador

or wherever, and they are waiting to be returned home, if they have an emergency

going into that area they will wait and take a couple of patients at a time

back, whether it is to St. John's, Labrador or anywhere else in the Province.

That has been done. Really, it is up to the patient's doctor to dedicate

whether that air ambulance is used.

Air ambulance this year has gone up by some 50 per cent to 60 per cent. It

was something like $1 million last year and is up over $1.6 million or $1.7

million already this year. It is not spared. If the doctor says they must go,

they will go. We have the King Air and the Commander used all the

time, twenty-four hours a day. Not only that, when they are in use we will go to

other airlines: Pal, Cougar, whoever. People are not stuck once the doctor

dictates that that patient must be moved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, when a doctor calls for a plane to respond it is an emergency. What

I am referring to is the question of when a patient is released from hospital.

As we have had, in this Province, on a number of occasions, I know people from

Labrador who have been released in body casts. The regular airlines will not

take anyone on a stretcher, they cannot sit in an airline seat, and therefore

their getting back home is dependent upon somebody else in Labrador having an

emergency. I ask the minister: If a doctor recommends that a patient be

transported home after surgery, would the plane be put on?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is not a case that has been brought to

my attention where a doctor anywhere, in any health care institution in this

Province, has requested the use of any of our air ambulance. Even, like I said,

if they had been in use - I had a case just last week, a request where both the King

Air and the Commander

were in use. We had one other airline in the Province already in use, called.

That was the third one. We put in a fourth to bring patients - I think it was

from St. John's to Deer Lake, in order to go to Corner Brook. I do not know of

anyone... If it is requested by a doctor - not only from Labrador. Those cases

are happening on the Island. I have had cases similar to what the member has

described here today moved from St. John's to Gander, from St. John's to

Deer Lake, from St. Anthony to St. John's. It does not matter. If the doctor

says they must travel by air ambulance, they will, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to be absolutely clear, because there have been cases where people have

waited for long periods of time to get back home, I can name a six-year-old

young fellow who was released from the hospital here in a body cast. Both of his

parents had to remain here with him, one at the risk of losing their job because

they could not return home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I ask him to get to his question.

MR. COLLINS: I would like to say that we made repeated calls and finally

did get the plane put on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you got it put on.

MR. COLLINS: Yes, after repeated calls and a lot of stress to the family.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. COLLINS: What I want to ask the minister is: Would it be automatic?

If a doctor requests the airline be put on to transport patients back home,

would that be part of the policy right now?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker,

the policy, first of all, when it comes to air ambulance, is emergency cases.

That is first. Second - and I explained this in the first question about the

request for use of air ambulance - is this. If it is not considered an emergency

then that patient will wait. If we have a plane going today from St. John's to

Deer Lake to pick up a patient, for instance in Deer Lake, as an emergency, we

will accommodate. In my experience, in my short time in the department, they

will send that patient to Deer Lake. Or if it is to Labrador, if it is to

Halifax. We have gone all over Atlantic Canada, we have gone into the U.S., we

have gone out west to the rest of Canada. So, emergency first, and if it isn't

an emergency the patient will wait there and when they are moved, if we have to

go on another mission, we will accommodate that particular individual. It is not

up to me, it is not up to the Minister of Health, it is up to the doctors in

that area, but emergencies are first.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today, I guess, are for the acting Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology. Exactly four years ago, on November 29, 1995, the Opposition

raised questions in this hon. House as to the future of air controller positions

in Gander. Considering that these services were being privatized and taken over

by a company called NAV Canada, I ask the minister: Is it a fact that a number

of air traffic controller positions are presently being compromised due to the

restructuring of air space?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that answer but I will check for

the hon. member and get it for him right after Question Period.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minster, and I look forward to his answer. I also like to tell

the minister that over the next three years there will thirty-eight fewer direct

jobs in Gander, with a loss to the local economy of $3.8 million. Again, I would

like to ask the minister, who is not in her seat today, exactly what her plan

is, or what she plans to do about the loss of this money for the Town of Gander?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the

minister is away on government business but I will certainly take the question

as notice because it is directed to her. I noticed he said, what she and

what her plans are, so I will certainly ask her for you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation. I would like to ask the minister: Was he

given any notice of the drastic action taken by Inter Canadian airlines during

the past weekend? Has his department been involved in any discussions with Inter

Canadian in regards to their future plans for Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was taken by surprise just like everybody

else in the Province on Sunday morning when I woke up to find that Inter

Canadian had cancelled all their flights as of 12:00 midnight, Saturday.

Nothing new for me as it pertains to Inter Canadian; when they pulled out of

Deer Lake and Gander some time ago, I was not even notified. They did not have

the decency and the protocol to notify me, as provincial minister, that they we

doing such a thing. I wrote the company at that time and the explanation I got

back was that they were looking for more gate space in Montreal, Toronto, and

Quebec. It had nothing to do with the cancellation of services here.

I tried today to contact them. No answer. There is absolutely no contact

whatsoever, a lack of communication.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I

just want to refer to remarks made by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis when

referred to the remarks that I had made. I just want to say that, in my remarks,

I was simply talking about the waiting list in doctors' waiting rooms, and had

said there was a certain tendency on the part of doctors, a certain arrogance if

you wish, in not attending to, in a more sensitive matter, the busy schedules of

the people that they serve, and had made the suggestion that I think that this

sort of pe rmeated the whole system and was administrative,

structural and systemic.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was trying to put his own spin on this, in

making his negative and scurrilous remarks, and I would suggest that he was out

of order and trying to put a wedge between this side and the dedicated and

competent doctors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member took the opportunity, I guess, to

clarify statements that he had made a few days ago.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. The petition

reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador;

WHEREAS the areas of the Province administered by the provincial Health Care

Corporation do not have dialysis services available, and the people in our area

who require regular dialysis services often must relocate permanently to St.

John's and incur the financial and emotional costs of being uprooted to get

the health care they need in order to live; and

WHEREAS it is our understanding that the working dialysis units are being

sent out of the Province to other countries when the local need is great; and

WHEREAS it is a principle of Canada's Medicare system that people should

have reasonable access to basic health care services without suffering

discrimination on the basis of where they live;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to approve the stationing of a dialysis unit in the area serviced by the

Peninsula Health Care Corporation and also provide staff, training and

resources, to ensure the regular operation of this dialysis unit.

Mr. Speaker, today I present another petition as brought forward by residents

of - this one came from Bonavista South and Trinity North, I say to members

opposite, where people are recognizing the great need to have a dialysis unit

stationed somewhere within the region, under control of the Peninsula Health

Care Corporation. The reason for wanting it there is not a matter of

convenience, if you would, but it is certainly a matter of necessity.

I have relayed stories here before of how seniors down in my own district,

who live three-and-a-half or four hours drive from St. John's; have had to go

and board up their windows, move into St. John's, rent an apartment, buy

second-hand furniture, in order to be close to a dialysis unit.

I have related another story about an individual from Bonavista Bay who has

been coming back and forth to St. John's for in excess of four years now,

getting up in the morning, putting his clothes and food aboard the box of his

truck - well, his wife actually has to put it aboard because the man is not able

to carry even his clothing or his food to his vehicle to get into St. John's.

He has to come in here, check into the hostel, and remain there all week to

return home again on a Friday morning; on the dialysis machine three times a

week, and the only option he has is to come in here and stay at the hostel,

being paid for by the department of social services. The gentleman was a hard

worker all his life. In fact, he had his own little construction company and was

very independent. Now he finds himself - having spent his whole life's savings

- has now had to go on social services in order to be able to access this

particular medical treatment.

What those people are asking for - and the numbers are approximately twenty

to twenty-five on the Bonavista Peninsula, the Clarenville area alone, from my

understanding. I don't know how many are on the Burin Peninsula, but there are

certainly at least probably the same number. All they are asking for is that a

dialysis machine be put somewhere in the vicinity of the Peninsula Health Care

Board where it would service the greatest number of people. They are saying we

do not expect to see a dialysis un it - to put one in

Bonavista, put one in Clarenville, put one in Burin; that is not the intent.

They are asking for a dialysis machine to be located in a central area so they

might be able to at least go home at night, at least be able to get up in the

morning, go and take their treatment, and go back to their homes at night. I do

not think that is asking too much, as we enter the new millennium.

When you hear the Minister of Finance talk about how well off we are on

current account and how the deficit is now going to be done away with, and when

you see us looking forward and reducing income tax, it makes those people wonder

what has happened to their plea, if it is falling on deaf ears or if government

or decision-makers care any more. I know that this is a plea that has been

coming to this House, through me and through the health care critic - it is a

plea that has been coming to me and to the health care critic from individuals

involved -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and I ask the government if they would look favorably

upon this request and on the petitions that are being brought forward by the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

8,

An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act. (Bill 27). I believe the

Minister of Health was speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could revert to a couple of first readings? The

Clerk has just reminded me that there are a couple we should do.

Motion 4 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, you did not. You can stand up. Go ahead, we will revert to

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to revert to Petitions?

Petitions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to support the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South

pertaining to dialysis services under the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation. As

we know today, there are only three areas in this Province where people can

avail of renal dialysis at health care institutions. Up to less than two years

ago it was only at two locations in the Province, Corner Brook and St. John's.

Central Newfoundland was fortunate enough in the past couple of years to be able

to have that service provided ther e. The people in the

area even, in Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, got very proactive and said they were

going to raise money and assist in the process there. It ended up in Grand

Falls-Windsor, and it is great to see other areas in the Province having access.

Because the people I have spoken with who are using these services in Central

Newfoundland - I spoke with people on the Northern Peninsula. One elderly

gentleman had to come to St. John's and relocate, move away, the first time

ever he had to be away from home, an elderly man, and live in St. John's in a

basement apartment. I spoke with another gentleman up there who had relatives in

Stephenville and he either had to go to Stephenville and commute to Corner Brook

or come into St. John's. He ended up relocating here. It

is traumatic on the family. It is very difficult when people have to go for

several hours a day at hospitals three times a week to be able to stay alive

because of kidney failure.

I am advocating, as I said here to the minister before, that we have to look

at strategic locations around the Province where we can station dialysis. It is

not a highly expensive procedure at all. We are talking about $700,000 in total.

A lot of dialysis today is done at home but still a certain number of people

need and require the services of going in to a hospital and having the renal

dialysis carried out.

With the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation it would not be uncommon for that

region to have something even in Clarenville. We are not saying on the Burin

Peninsula and in Bonavista, but at least have it in Clarenville to where

somebody can drive. From the most remote points, at least, it is an hour and a

half. Most areas can reach it there within an hour. The bulk of them can reach

it within an hour's drive. At least the services provided there will enable

people on the Bonavista Peninsula, even the Burin Peninsula, to go into

Clarenville. It is a lot easier than having to relocate and come to St. John's.

Lives are disrupted, families are being broken down. We have people, the only

wage earner in the family, have their income taken away because they are

spending time, three days a week, away. They had to give up their job and are

unable to work in many instances, and it is having a devastating effect on the

family.

In these modern times it is not too much to expect to be able to provide

services in certain locations in the Province. We do not expect every hospital

to be able to provide those services - it would not be practical - but where

there are sufficient numbers to be able to warrant those services - and I

understand there are sufficient numbers in regions of this Province that do not

have ready access to this service - people should to be able to get it.

I ask the minister to take a look at that, to listen to the needs of these

people, and to provide services that can serve these people, allowing them to

stay in the comfort of their own homes around their families.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, first of all, motions 4 and 5, if I can call both

of them together.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, carried.

(Bill 44)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee

Act, carried. (Bill 42.

On motion, Bills 42 and 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

8, Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act.

I believe the debate was adjourned by my hon. colleague the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. I see he is not yet on his feet but I imagine he will be up

shortly.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. friend, colleague and House Leader is absolutely right, I was not on

my feet but I am here now. My time had just about expired Friday when I was

speaking to the issue of health care in the Province generally. The point of

view I was expressing at that time was simply this, to not so much put the

record straight, but to put on the record some of the good things, some of the

positive aspects, and some of the progressive and helpful things that are

happening in the health care system.

As I said to the Speaker when I rose to speak on the debate on Friday, I

would be the last to allege that the health care system in the Province is

perfect. As a matter of fact, no system that delivers public services, or no

system generally in government or in the private sector, can be alleged to be

perfect in any circumstance. Certainly if systems could be perfect by now,

computer systems in the country would be perfect in light of the enormous amount

of afford that has gone into them to avoid Y2K problems and that sort of thing.

I would simply say in concluding my part of the debate on the health care

system on this particular bill that it is incumbent on all of us to be fair,

factual and not only appear to be, but be, honest with respect to our assessment

of the health care system. I do not believe that the people who administer

health care in this Province, the CEOs of the board, the boards themselves, or

even the Minister of Health, if I might say so, are terribly insensitive to

criticism that is going to be helpful, and that is above all accurate as these

points are brought forward. I think it is also incumbent upon the hon. House

Leader on the other side of the House, the hon. Member for Ferryland, and for

others who speak to the health care issue in the Province to make sure that they

are both factual and that they are in context in terms of the suggestions they

make and the allegations they put forward.

The fact of the matter is that over the last three years, as I understand it,

from the answers that have been given by my colleague the Minister of Health, we

have put into the health care system well in excess of $100 million of new money

over the last three years. That is net, as I understand it, of money that has

gone to that department as a result of transferred responsibilities from the

older Department of Social Services. If there is any one province that can take

pride in what we have done in the context of reduced transfer payments from

Ottawa, I believe it is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, I would also point out that during the three years from 1994 to 1997

when the federal government was reducing the CHST transfers by $6 million or $7

million at the end of the day to the provinces for health care, when the federal

government was reducing funding coming into the Province, at no point and in no

year was funding ever reduced year over year by this government for the purposes

of health care. As a matter of fact, even in the worst of times, in the leanest

of years, and in the period when federal transfers were being cut, even in those

mean and lean years, so to speak, this government and the predecessor government

from 1994 to 1997 continued to increase funding for the health care system.

I would only ask that the members on the other side of the House be not only

diligent in executing their responsibilities as being an objective critic where

it is appropriate, but I would also ask the members on the opposite side of the

House to be factual and fair in their assessment of what is happening, what has

happened and what will continue to happen no doubt in the health care system of

this Province as we continue to move forward on the able, and under the capable,

and under the professional, direction of the Minister of Health who has been

carrying that tremendously heavy load over the past three years.

I'm sure the hon. Member for Ferryland will understand that it is not a fun

game every day to be faced with having to answer questions with respect to

specific health care interactions in the Province. The fact of the matter is, I

believe, that there are in excess of 15,000 people every single day who visit a

doctor or who have an interaction with a doctor in the health care system in

this Province for some reason or other. That, on top of the myriad of calls that

are handled under the community health boards, plus the

interactions that take place in hospitals, adds up to a lot of daily

interactions with the system. While it may not be a perfect system, it is a good

system that is getting better and will be sustained only to the extent that we

have a willingness to continue to see that we have in this country a single tier

publicly funded health care system that I believe will be to the benefit to all

of us. To go in another direction, I believe, would be to go in a direction

that, at the end of the day, might be to the disadvantage of all of us in terms

of availability of service and access to the system.

These will be the concluding comments that I would have at this point.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make some remarks about the health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Against the health care, yes. They will be factual. I will

not be fearmongering unless you are the patient involved. Then, I say, maybe a

great deal of fear would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Then I would suggest that maybe if you were one of the

patients involved, one of the people whom I will refer to today, you would have

fear.

The first person that I will speak about is a person who is presently a

patient in the Health Sciences Centre. On Wednesday of this week, he started to

fast at 6:30 p.m. for a procedure that he was to have the next day. I guess, up

against some of the patients that are in the hospital, this will appear

relatively minor, but it speaks to the wait list and how there is a backup. This

person started to fast at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday. His procedure was to have been

Thursday. Thursday at 4:00 p.m., after him fasting since 6:30 p.m. the day

before, they said: I am sorry, Sir, but your procedure is cancelled for today;

there is too big a backup downstairs.

Being a fairly pleasant man, he said: That is okay, my dear, but do you think

I could have a cup of tea and some toast? I am starving. I have been fasting

since 6:30 p.m. yesterday. I am sorry, Sir. We do not have the provisions here

on the floor to accommodate that; you will have to wait until supper comes up at

4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m.

Where that may have only been a half an hour or an hour wait, it may sound

insignificant, but when you are sick, diabetic, and have several other things

wrong with you, and you have been starving all day, waiting for a procedure,

then an extra hour is a long, long time.

I will speak about the mom who lives in my district who has a developmentally

delayed daughter. When the daughter has a temper tantrum or an emotional

outburst, which is characteristic of her developmental delay, and the mom wants

some help for that child, she is told that, when the child was seventeen, she

had to go to the Remand Centre. Our health care system could not provide for her

daughter. So, she was sent to the Remand Centre and stripped and searched and

handcuffed because a psychiatric unit in one of our hospitals could not

accommodate her.

I will speak about another person in this city who was taking care of a

gentlemen who was developmentally delayed. About 10:00 p.m. in the evening, he

started to become very anxious and very upset, and the person knew that she

could not alter or change his medication. This person is a Waterford patient, so

the care giver called the Waterford Hospital and said: I am having this problem

with this patient of yours. What should I do?

The response was: We can't accommodate him here at the hospital - which is

part of the health care - you will have to call the police and have him detained

in the lockup.

That is true. Now, I don't know if it is fearmongering or if a person who

is developmentally delayed would actually feel fear when they are sick and

something is wrong with them and they are detained in the lockup with people who

have been charged with a criminal offence. If that is fearmongering, I am

guilty, but I will not stop fearmongering until the most disadvantaged in our

society are recognized by this government.

I will speak about another patient, a woman who is eighty-five years of age.

She had raised five children practically on her own because, in the hard times,

her husband was a traveling salesman, and transportation then was not what it is

today. Many times her husband was away for a month at a time, leaving her with a

coal stove and five children to raise and educate. Unfortunately that person,

when she became eighty years of age, got dementia, and I visited that person

every day while she was a patient in one of the nursing homes. That person was

my mother.

One day, I went to visit my mother and she could not verbalize properly to

me, but her physical movements told me that she was very uncomfortable. I

checked what was under my mother's head, for a pillow. It was a hard blanket

shoved into a pillowcase. I went to the nursing station and said, my mother is

uncomfortable. She said: I am sorry, Mrs. Osborne, we do not have any pillows on

the floor. As a matter of fact, I don't know -

MR. SULLIVAN: I have seen it all over the hospitals (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Exactly. Unfortunately, my mother could not verbalize that

she wanted one. Is that fearmongering? This is factual. This is what is

happening in our health care system.

When we stand up on this side of the House and try to make -

AN HON. MEMBER: My mother died of cancer thirteen years ago, and I had to

do the same kind of thing.

MS S. OSBORNE: Do you want the floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I don't;

because (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. If you want it, you ask for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't

have to ask for it.

MS S. OSBORNE: If you want the floor, Sir, stand and I will sit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: I am talking about something that is very serious. I am

talking about this government being accountable. When this Opposition tries to

make this government accountable, we are accused of fearmongering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: You know no fear until you see your mother, eighty-five

years of age, laying in the bed without a pillow because the health care system

could not provide the necessary supplies for a woman who has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). What does that say?

MS S. OSBORNE: I do not know what it has to say, but do not try to put me

off on what I am saying. There are people in this system who are suffering, and

this Opposition will stand as long as it is happening and we will make this

government accountable. You can accuse us of fearmongering. You can try to slant

it how you like. It is factual. These people are out there.

The Member for Terra Nova referred to people having to wait, and wait a

little while when they are not in intensive care. I know of a patient who was

not in intensive care but the patient was very sick and had an IV hooked up. The

patient was astute enough to know that there was a long air embolus going

through the IV tube, and pushed the buzzer, and pushed it and pushed it. When

the air embolus got down to where it was about to go into the person, they had

to disconnect their own IV.

That has nothing to do with the staff. That has to do with lack of staff.

That is why things like that are happening, and I will never put down the

doctors or the nurses, or accuse them of arrogance or accuse them of not

responding. I just say that there are not enough of them.

The hon. Member for Terra Nova referred to getting federal government

transfer payments reinstated. Get the federal government... It seems to me, Sir,

that maybe the hon. member could speak to his boss, because I do believe he was

at the Cabinet table when those transfer payments to this Province were cut. So

maybe we can talk to him.

The hon. Member for Terra Nova also said that he has not heard members of

this side asking for the federal government to instate them. In the thirty

months that I have been here, I have heard it; and in the thirty months that I

have been here, personally, I have written the federal Minister of Health and

described the situation that is happening in some instances in our Province, and

asked the federal government to have more money put into this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, Sir, as long as there are people out in our Province

who are in situations as I have just described, I will probably be accused of

fearmongering but I will stand as often as I have to and fight on behalf of

those people.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minster of Health

and Community Services, I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill 27)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

10,

An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act. ( Bill 29)

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act.

(Bill 29)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to know that I have at least one enthusiastic supporter on

this side of the House at this moment, it being the Member for Bellevue, as I

rise to speak to this bill that is before the House for amendment.

This is a fairly routine amendment to Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Coat of

Arms Act. Simply put, it has the effect of delegating the authority for approval

of the usage of the Province's Coat of Arms from the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, meaning in effect the Cabinet, to the level of authorization at the

minister's level.

The reason why this bill is here is simply this: We do on occasion - not on a

lot of occasions but we do on some occasions - get requests, extraordinary to

government's wishes, to use the Coat of Arms of the Province for purposes

outside of the conduct of government business. The Coat of Arms can now be used,

of course, by government; it can be used by agencies of government; it can be

used by Members of the House of Assembly, generally speaking, for purposes of

conducting the ongoing affairs of the Pr ovince. There are,

on certain occasions, requests from groups such as educational institutions,

publishers of educational material and that type of thing, even from people who

want to use the Coat of Arms to use it on a souvenir and that type of material,

for permission to use the Coat of Arms and reproduce it for application to their

products. It is not a permitted use at the moment of the Coat of Arms and so

these requests come to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs under

the Provincial Affairs part of the portfolio of that department and they ask for

permission to use the Coat of Arms in a particular manner for a particular

purpose. At the moment, that request has to go all the way to the Cabinet table

for authorization or refusal. This bill simply reassigns that level of

authorization to the minister as opposed to the level of the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council.

The Coat of Arms is a very important symbol, if you like, of the Government

of the Province. As a matter of fact, if we were to look over the Speaker's

head, over the Speaker's Chair now, we would see clearly our Coat of Arms and

we would see what it looks like, and would all agree that it is a readily

recognizable identification symbol with the Government of the Province.

Regardless of what political party forms the government, it represents the

Government of the Province of the day

While it is not the intent of government to unduly restrict the use of the

Coat of Arms, it is certainly the responsibility and the intention of government

to ensure that the Coat of Arms of this Province is used in an appropriate

fashion, in a dignified manner, used only for a legitimate purpose that is

extraneous to a usage that would bring disrepute or cause damage to the image of

the Crown.

While we value the Coat of Arms, while we are intent on protecting it in

terms of its usage, while we have every intention of ensuring that the Coat of

Arms appears only where it is appropriate and where it can do credit to the

Province and to the Province's image and reputation, it is not the intent of

government to refuse appropriate usage when it comes forward. Simply put, as

opposed to it being a matter that should arrive at the Cabinet table for a

formal decision as to whether or not it should be used by

a specific group in a specific circumstance, it simply now puts that level of

authorization at the desk of the minister of the day.

Mr. Speaker, that is, simply put, what this amendment is all about. I would

move the amendment as put forward.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act.

Indeed, the minister did make a few comments that certainly I agree with. It is

an important symbol, the Coat of Arms, for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is indeed above your head in this House of Assembly. The words

mean, Seek ye first the kingdom of God, I say to the Minister of Health.

The minister said that this is a routine amendment. In a certain respect it

could be considered a routine amendment. It does, of course, have the affect of

delegating the authority from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to the

minister. I say to the minister that he was not quite clear when he stood with

respect to that point. He said that he referred to Cabinet, but in actual fact

it delegates the authority from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to the

minister to allow people, companies, individuals and what have you to use the

Coat of Arms on any product that they may wish to use it on.

The minister states that this symbol, the Coat of Arms, is used by different

government agencies, and we all know that to be the case. Member of the House of

Assembly oftentimes use it on their letterheads, their various business cards or

what have you. They utilize it very often. I do have a concern, though, in just

allowing it to go to the minister for his discretion alone. That in itself can

create problems down the road depending on who may want to use this Coat of Arms

on any given product, any letterhead, or what have you, or what businesses or

individuals may want to use it. At the present time, it is not a permitted use

for various companies and individuals in the Province without having to go to

the Lieutenant- Governor in Council. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is

basically Cabinet, I would say to the members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Of course, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

will - I say the Member for Bellevue is finally listening and learning something

in this House of Assembly after nine or ten years. How long are you here?

MR. BARRETT: Ten years and seven months.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ten years and seven months, and he has finally learned

something, Mr. Speaker. He learned it from me.

What would be wrong with leaving it as it is, and letting Cabinet be a second

sober thought on permission for various groups, individuals or companies to use

this? Now, if a individual or company comes in - and once this piece of

legislation goes through the House of Assembly, what can happen is that the

minister will have the discretion to say to any given company if they will have

permission to use this. That would lead me to this question: What guidelines or

criteria may be put in place to allow the minister to make that decision?

I would not want to question the present minister's integrity or anything

like that, but we all know that there are politicians here, and we have certain

leniencies oftentimes, especially government members, that when certain

businesses apply for funds or use of whatever the government may have to offer,

if we have a situation where we have two companies that are in competition for a

given product, and one company wants to use the Coat of Arms on that product, or

both wants to use them, will there be an y criteria put in

place that will then require the minister to allow both companies? The minister

just held up a sheet saying that he does have criteria in place, which is good

to hear, and I am glad to hear that he does have criteria in place to allow that

to happen.

How often has permission been requested in the past, I say to the minister?

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not very often, he says. If that is the case, what is the

necessity to allow this piece of legislation to go through? If it is not

happening very often, then that begs another question: Why are we now making

this amendment to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, to allow the minister to have

this discretion?

Somebody with a cynical or devious mind would ask that question right away.

They would say: Maybe there is something here we do not know about. For example,

last year when the Minister of Work, Services and Transportation had put out a

tender for $500,000 to build a new Coat of Arms in front of the Confederation

Building, by asking questions in the House of Assembly it was cancelled. Five

hundred thousand dollars was going to be spent on the construction of a new Coat

of Arms in the front of the Confederation Building. They backed off on that last

year.

MR. TULK: It is being done now.

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go.

The Government House Leader says that it is being done now. I'm led to

believe, and I take the minister at his word, that it is being done with no

government funds in front of the Confederation Building. I hope that to be the

case. If there was government money going into it, I would have to say it could

be better spent. I said it last year in this House of Assembly, that that amount

of money, $500,000 - and we had an example here today of questions being asked

with respect to health care again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they have permission to use the Coat of Arms?

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go.

I don't know. I imagine the government has permission to build a Coat of Arms.

I would think that to be the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government is not building it. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good point. The government is not building it.

They are building it for the government, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they

haven't got permission, they cannot put it out there.

MR. J. BYRNE: They would have to have permission, I would say.

I will ask the minister also, because he just made a comment to my questions

early, this.

MR. EFFORD: What minister?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the

minister who is sponsoring Bill 29, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. He said

that permission to use this Coat of Arms does not happen that often, I say to

the minister. Is there anyone now in particular seeking permission to use the

Coat of Arms, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and if so, who? Would the minister like

to elaborate on that in his concluding words? Would he want to say who or what

businesses out there or what individuals, or what agencies, or what groups are

interested in using the Coat of Arms, and for what purpose?

A concern that I have, of course, is this. As the minister said in his

opening remarks, it is a very important symbol of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and I agree. The Coat of Arms of any province or country would be

a very important symbol. Are there any individuals out there now looking to put

this on a retail product, I ask the minister? What groups, what businesses are

looking, if there are any looking, to put this on their products? Again, is

there a process in place to ensure fairness, so one company is not getting the

benefit over another company? He has already addressed that. I would be curious

to see the criteria or the specs that would be used to permit that.

Another question, Mr. Speaker, is: How often has anyone been prosecuted for

the misuse of the Coat of Arms in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Has

there been anyone ever prosecuted for the misuse of the using of the Coat of

Arms, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs? I have to go back also to the

fact that the minister says that the fact that it is not that often it is

requested to be utilized. If that is the case - the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation may be interested in this too - why are we now trying to put

this through the House of Assembly if it is very seldom that there is a request?

Is it that big a burden on the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to say aye or nay

to the use of the Coat of Arms?

To me, there is something that could be going on behind the scenes that we do

not know about. You know, Mr. Speaker? There may be groups wanting to utilize

this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) behind the scenes you do not know about.

MR. J. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are having a minister of the

Cabinet of this Province agreeing in this House of Assembly that there is lots

going on behind the scenes that we do not know about on this side of the House

of Assembly. That is why we have Question Period, to ask questions in this House

of Assembly, but we are not allowed to ask questions, and if we ask questions we

are being irresponsible or we are fearmongering or what have you. That is what

is going on, and the minister finally admitted it.

That is the reason why when the Minister of Mines and Energy gets up to

answer a question he is so very careful, lately, very lately now, Mr. Speaker,

of the words that he is using to answer the questions. That has only happened

recently, I would say, because when we were asking questions in the House of

Assembly last spring with respect to the nurses' strike the minister was not

so careful over the words he used, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if there is a lot more that can be said with respect to this

piece of legislation. I do not know if anybody else on this side of the House is

planning on speaking to this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader that he is over there

in the chair next to the Premier, and he was in Opposition for many years I

understand. He was in the back benches of government for many years. He knows

the role of the Opposition, or at least he should know it. He should know the

role of the Opposition in this House of Assembly, where democracy is held most

high. With most of us, I would say, but not all.

Again, this is a bit of a side issue, just with respect to the Coat of Arms

out in front that is being constructed now, I say to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Would he like to elaborate on the final design of that? Because when I

am looking at it driving up the parkway, all you see is a big concrete wall. Up

on the fifth floor of Confederation Building, looking down on it, you can

certainly see the design and what is happening there. Basically for people to

see it, you either have to get up in a helicopter or come up on the fifth or

sixth floor of Confederation Building and look down upon it.

I was surprised when I saw that happening because before when people drove by

there was no problem to see the Coat of Arms in front of the Confederation

Building. I am just curious as to the finished product in front of that big wall

that goes out around. What is going to be there on that, I say to the minister?

He may know. I would imagine he does know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your picture (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It would be a...

MR. TULK: Don't say it is

better looking than the Coat of Arms. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I was going to say, better my picture than yours, I say

to the Government House Leader. No doubt there, okay? Maybe you should have

pictures of all the members out there.

MR. TULK: Jack, there is nothing worse (inaudible) in the world than

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, some would agree with what the Government

House Leader just said. There would be nothing worse than having my picture, but

there are some that would disagree wholeheartedly, I say to the Government House

Leader. Some would disagree wholeheartedly. The Member for Bay of Islands

disagrees. He agrees with me. He disagrees with the Government House Leader.

In the meantime I think I am going to -

MR. TULK: They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, all right.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to the Government House Leader, if beauty is in

the eye of the beholder the person that loves you or feels that you are

beautiful must be some beholder.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is not what I thought he said.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down. Are there members on this side

or anybody on that side who would like to say a few words?

Just in conclusion, I am going to sit down and say that the question I have

to ask before I sit down is: If the use of the Coat of arms is being used or

requested very few times in the past, why the necessity to amend the legislation

in the first place?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand just to say a few brief words on Bill 29 and to commend the minister

in the way he introduced the bill. Normally in this House - and I have said this

many times - you get a bill, some of them like Bill 23, a fairly thick bill, and

the minister stands and in one minute they are sitting down.

Today we have a bill that does not mean a lot. It is only housekeeping. It is

no big event, but the minister stood for about fifteen minutes to introduce the

bill. Obviously he felt very comfortable. He explained the bill and what it was

all about, what it meant and the reason why it was introduced into the Chamber.

That is the way it should be, I say to the minister. When the minister

introduces a bill in this House, when he or she is finished, when they sit down,

then we should know fully what the bill contains, the reason for the change and

the reason why it is put before the House to debate and make a decision on.

This particular bill is not earthshattering or anything. It is

An Act To

Amend The Coat of Arms Act. The Coat of Arms is something that I wear. Every

coat that I have I wear a Coat of Arms on it. It is something that I have been

very proud to wear, especially since I came into this Assembly. If somebody sees

me someday with a coat on and I do not have the Coat of Arms in the lapel, then

I am after giving it to somebody before I could get to another one. Because I

wear the Coat of Arms religiously on my coat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

somebody else's coat on (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Or I may

have somebody else's coat on. It is a popular pin that a lot of people come

looking for and a lot of people like to have. They associate it with

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our symbol. It is a symbol of this House here,

Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes I wonder if we do not become too protective of some of those

things. I know we cannot let everybody go out and just paste the Coat of Arms on

everything, but I have some concerns when I hear minister after minister getting

up in the House saying that you have to come to the minister now to haul out a

load of wood. You have to go to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, I say to members opposite. The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation now expects all the depots across Newfoundland and Labrador that

dispense gasoline to call him and give him the readout of a particular tank

every Monday morning. That is what the minister requires. Now the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs wants people to call him if they want to use

the Coat of Arms. It makes me wonder what the ministers do.

If you go in and cut your wood before a certain time you have to have it out

within two months or do you know what you have to do? You have to call the

Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and ask him if it is all right for

you to bring home your load of wood. You have to call the minister and find out

if you can bring home your load of wood because it is two months since you cut

it. You have to have it in and out from the time you got your permit. The

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is saying: When I come in Monday

mornings, I want everybody out in Newfoundland and Labrador that has a fuel tank

that dispenses gasoline to call me and tell me how much fuel is in the tank. The

minister should not have to be concerned about those issues. Surely to goodness

he has staff there that he trusts.

Now we have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. If somebody

outside this Legislature wants to use this Coat of Arms then they -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you serious?

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, I'm

serious. This is the crowd you are tangled up with, I say to the member.

Mr. Speaker, he has to call the minister and find out if they can use the

Coat of Arms. That is not what the minister should be involved in. That is not

why we are paying ministers good salaries in this House. That is not the reason

why the Premier goes out and makes appointments for people to sit in Cabinet and

to give direction of what Newfoundland and Labrador is all about.

While it might be an important piece of legislation and it might be some

slight to this Chamber or to government if we use the Coat of Arms, then maybe

some of the minister's staff can deal with that. I do not think the minister

should deal with it any more than it is such a trivial issue to be brought to a

Cabinet table or before the Assembly. It is something that should be dealt with

at a much lower level than taking it to the minister. If the minister has no

more to do than listen to those kind of things, then it makes you wonder if we

are getting our money's worth and if they are fulfilling their obligations

that they were elected here to do.

That is about all that I have to say on the Coat of Arms. I understand there

are a few more people here that want to say a few words. Maybe, I say to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, when he stands up to close debate

he might want to tell us the difference of why we can use the Coat of Arms but

we can't use the government emblem? Is the government emblem only for

departments of government or is it only in places that all Members of the House

of Assembly can use? I'm confused about that. I'm confused why we cannot use

the government emblem on stationery. If I decide that I am going to put out a

card or that I am going to put forward something, and I am going to do it in the

name of the House of Assembly, and if I choose to use the emblem of government

rather than the Coat of Arms - the emblem is just a centrepiece of the Coat of

Arms - then why can't I use that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: If that is the reason, then I accept that. Maybe the

minister can address that and explain it when he gets up to close debate on the

difference of Members of this House using the Coat of Arms and using the emblem

if it is only government departments.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: What?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: You are not the one in charge, I say to the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, and you never will. He has reached his peak as far as

he will go in this Assembly.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I pass the debate on to any other member that would

like to speak and talk about this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I am certainly pleased to rise today and speak in favour of this particular

bill. I certainly fully support it, as all my colleagues do on this side of the

House. I find it difficult to believe that members opposite would not support

this particular bill. We are talking about the Newfoundland Coat of Arms here.

It belongs to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Like any other

treasure, I think this government has a responsibility to protect it.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill is doing. The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South says there is no need for the minister to have the

responsibility of saying who can or who cannot use this particular Coat of Arms;

but, if he doesn't do it then who is going to do it? Are we going to delegate

the authority of this government to the Opposition? I don't think so. Not yet.

We are not willing to do that yet.

We all know that anything in society, whether it be the Newfoundland Coat of

Arms or whether it be any other symbol, it has always been protected. It is only

fitting and proper that this government protect our very own Newfoundland Coat

of Arms. I believe that it is incumbent on every member in this House to ensure

that it is protected.

I am really amazed at the Member for Bonavista South. He is always so

level-headed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Always?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - except when

it comes to protecting. When it comes to protecting things in this Province, he

doesn't seem to be consistent. He wants the fish protected, he wants the land

protected, but he doesn't want the Coat of Arms protected. I don't

understand that.

I don't know of any symbol that is worth anything that is not protected. I

believe that this government is not willing to allow this Coat of Arms to be

used by anybody, for whatever purpose. I think the whole purpose of this bill is

to ensure that, for whatever purpose it is used, it has the approval of the

minister.

I believe that the members opposite will see the light and they will fully

support this bill. In fact, I suspect there will be a unanimous vote on it. In

fact, this is the right thing to do. I am wondering why we are even debating it,

why we would have a debate in this House on whether or not we should protect the

Newfoundland Coat of Arms.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a major riff over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there is.

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite talks about the riff that is over there.

It has nothing to do with the bill, nothing whatsoever.

It was only the other day he was wondering -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: I will take back that statement, Mr. Speaker, about the

member being level-headed.

I think the bill is very clear. It says,

(4) A person, other than the

government of the province, shall not assume or use

(

a) the Coat of Arms;

(

c) a design which resembles the Coat of Arms,

unless that person has the express permission of the minister.

Mr. Speaker, that is very clear. We, on this side of the House, want to

protect the use of the Coat of Arms exclusively; that no other individual can

use that Coat of Arms for whatever purpose unless they have permission of the

minister.

That is very clear. In fact, it is a very short bill. I don't think it

needs any

interpretation, but I will be surprised if everybody, on both sides of

the House, does not stand and support this particular bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would remind hon. gentlemen to be ready to rise and be recognized. The

Chair is not prepared to be waiting for you to get to your seat.

The Chair will recognize the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley again.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side, had scheduled a number of speakers and we found that, when

the time arose, the member was temporarily not available to speak to the House.

We, on this side, believe in the integrity of the Coat of Arms. It is part of

Newfoundland's history, part of our heritage, and we believe that it should be

preserved. We, on this side, will be voting for this particular bill. It is a

rather, shall we say, minor bill, but some members on this side wanted to have

an opportunity to have a few words. As a consequence, the Member for Bonavista

South got up and gave a rather eloquent speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: Inspiring.

MR. H. HODDER: - inspiring speech, as he always does, and told us his

concerns and got into a lot of other issues pertaining to the integrity of the

Coat of Arms. As a consequence of his inspiring speech, I notice that the Member

for Topsail felt compelled to get up and share with us his commentaries on why

this bill should be passed.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side would want to support the legislation, and I do

understand that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is supposed to

address this bill as well, and if he doesn't get back to his seat, he is going

to miss the opportunity to speak.

We want to say to the government that anything that they can do to promote

Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote us as a place of destiny for tourism, in

the uses to which we put our Coat of Arms, it is a symbol of our Province, it is

a symbol of our integrity. We on this side will support the bill, but first of

all I do believe there are a couple of more speakers. Particularly the Member

for Placentia & St.. Mary's will want to join in the debate, because he

has some very important things he wants to share with all

members of the House, and indeed all people across the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member was not standing when I recognized the hon. Member for

Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I will give leave to the Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Okay, sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is the snipe up in the back saying now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, protection from the snipe up in the back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I would say I could give you some advice on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Wouldn't take

it.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Tourism gets very excited when it

comes to talking about money, and how free he is with his - but I would just

like to speak today on Bill 29.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fellow up in Ontario taking your money

(inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Tourism - no, I will not. I will leave it

alone.

I would just like to stand today and say a few words on Bill 29,

An Act To

Amend The Coat Of Arms Act. I listened to the Member for Topsail, on his legal

opinion on this issue, when he stood up to say a few words. The amendment to the

act is nothing earth-shattering but it is something that concerns us all, for

the simple reason that the Coat of Arms is something that represents

Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is here in the Province or anywhere across

Canada, or anywhere in the world for that matter. The Coat of Arms represents

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Coat of Arms, which you see just above the Speaker's Chair, is

something that symbolizes Newfoundland and Labrador to the whole world. It is

important that we protect it. It is important that we have some type of

regulatory regime in place, that the Coat of Arms is not used anywhere at all

wherever any individual wants to use the Coat of Arms in the Province. It is

something that certainly imitates the Province, and it is something that

represents the Province, whether it is on a piece of paper,

whether it is on a jacket - whether the Coat of Arms is on a jacket that the

Minister of Tourism may give to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Wherever

the Coat of Arms is used, it is something that resembles Newfoundland and

Labrador. It resembles the people of the Province, and it is important that it

is protected.

Right now, from what I understand, the authority to grant permission for the

use of the Coat of Arms basically has to go back to Cabinet. It is kind of

cumbersome, and I guess the purpose we find ourselves here today is to make that

process less cumbersome. This is what this amendment will bring forward, I hope,

in that we make the process less cumbersome in relation to the use of the Coat

of Arms in the Province. I guess, in a nutshell, that is what this amendment is

all about. It is important, as I say, that we have a less cumbersome act,

because the Coat of Arms is something that a lot of volunteer organizations use

in relation to sometimes when they are doing some fundraising for different

charities throughout the Province, from what I can understand, and getting

permission to use the Coat of Arms on these products that they are trying to

have for fundraisers. There are a whole gamut of things that they would have to

go through in order to get permission to use that.

With this amendment today, we hope to see that the use of the Coat of Arms

will be more or less straightforward and it will be a decision, from what I can

understand, of the minister in relation to the use of the Coat of Arms.

The amendment is brought forward and it is something that hopefully the House

will proceed with moving forward in relation to the fact that people throughout

the Province, whether young people or anybody who wants to use the Coat of Arms

for any project they may have, that it is less cumbersome and that they can have

the Coat of Arms and the use of the Coat of Arms without any problem.

I say, in all honesty, it may sound to some people that it is not something

that is that important. It may sound to members of the House that it is not

important. It may sound that way to people outside of the House, that it is not

that important about the Coat of Arms, but I think it is a very important thing

that we protect it. It is an important aspect of the Newfoundland people, it is

something that needs to be protected, and it certainly needs to be regulated in

that it is not flamboyantly used wherever an individual, organization, group or

company would like to use it. I think that is why we have protection through

legislation with the Coat of Arms. It is something that I certainly support and

do not have any problem in supporting this amendment to the act. It is something

that I can certainly live with, because I think it brings protection to the use

of the Coat of Arms, and I think it is very important that we have that.

I would just like to say that I am interested in the debate flowing back and

forth between both sides of the House. While some members stand on their feet

and say they have concerns with the act, or the amendment to the act, I

certainly do not. I think it is something - that we have protection for the Coat

of Arms. I don't think anybody should be allow to just use the Coat of Arms at

their own whim. Just say, for example, that somebody went out and produced a

coat, a jacket, and for some reason or other stuck the Coat of Arms on the

jacket and presented the jacket to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Maybe

he would get upset about the use of the Coat of Arms on the jacket. I don't

know. The man was pretty upset because we had a jacket made in Indonesia. If the

Coat of Arms had to be on that jacket that was made in Indonesia, the Member for

Signal Hill-Quid Vidi might be in a furor over it; I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: A furey'

over it.

MR. MANNING: I am just

saying that he could be in a furor over the furey' jacket.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, if he had to be thinking straight and have

his mind on the game, he would have given his critic the jacket. Instead of

taking things personally, he would have come across the floor, and: Here is a

present for you. Go and enjoy the Viking Millennium.

I guess I am not on the chuck wagon express' so I didn't get a jacket.

We will get back to that later on. That is another issue that will keep for

another day. I am going to get back to the act, but I keep getting thrown off by

the fact that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi got a present of a jacket

and nobody else did. I can't understand that. What happens then is that -

AN HON. MEMBER: I got one, too.

MR. MANNING: Oh, you got one

too? I didn't know you got one too. So I got left out altogether. All my

buddies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: So I am the

only person on this side of the House who didn't get a jacket that was make in

Indonesia, I say to the Minister of Tourism?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Present it, I say to the Minister of Tourism. Present it. I

will get back to that.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to put the jacket back in the closet and get back now

to the Coat of Arms. There are a few members who could still be in the closet

with the jacket, so I will leave that there.

I would like to get back to the Coat of Arms Act. I look over at the Minister

of Fisheries. I am not going to talk about the leadership campaign today, I say

to the Minister of Fisheries. I did a poll this weekend and I will update you on

Wednesday on the poll - Thursday. I will update you on Thursday on the poll. I

will not be in the House on Wednesday, due a function in my district, but I will

update the House on the latest leadership poll, I say to the Minister of

Fisheries.

I have to be honest. Up until the latest poll that I did, which was out in my

district... Around the first week of November, I conducted a poll on the

leadership. I have to say - and I don't apologize to the Minister of Mines and

Energy when I say this, but - the Minister of Fisheries is far ahead in rural

Newfoundland. So, you have a lot of work to do out in rural Newfoundland. You

are doing well in the urban areas, but the Minister of Fisheries is miles ahead

in rural Newfoundland when it comes t o the leadership, Mr.

Speaker. Now I know -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are nautical miles.

MR. MANNING: I am talking nautical miles. The Minister of Fisheries is

miles ahead and he is well-suited - I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy

that I know for a fact that the Minister of Fisheries is well-suited to finance

the campaign. I know that for sure. He is well-suited to finance the campaign.

I remember back many years ago when I was only a wee little fellow out on the

Cape Shore when the Minister of Fisheries would be trucking along -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, no I say to the minister. I have come a long ways.

The Minister of Fisheries would come trucking along, selling his wares door

to door. I must say, the Minister of Fisheries, who was a wholesaler at the

time, did a fair amount of business with some of my family members who were in

business also. I have to say that he gave a few good deals on used appliances.

They were painted up to look new, but I got a few good deals off him.

I can remember back a few years ago when I came across a bill at home - I

mentioned this in the House one time before - it is interesting, where the

Minister of Fisheries had made out a bill to my aunt in Branch, St. Mary's

Bay. On the top of the bill he had down: ten pencils, ten rubbers, ten

exercises.

I am just wondering. He was a very good, straightforward man when he was out

doing business in the area, and I am sure he will make a great leader of the

Liberal Party when the day comes. The Minister of Mines and Energy will have to

settle for deputy.

I just want to get back to Bill 29, if I could. The members opposite keep

throwing me off on this important bill. I want to stand here today and say a few

words because I think it is important that we protect the Coat of Arms, not only

for ourselves but indeed for all the people of the Province. It is important

that the Coat of Arms be respected. We, on this side of the House, certainly

respect the Coat of Arms. It is a symbol of Newfoundland and Labrador to the

rest of the world. It is something that we are proud of as a Province, it is

something that we are proud of as a people, and it is something that needs to be

protected. I guess, through this act today, the Coat of Arms is not only

protected but the use of the Coat of Arms is enhanced, and certainly the use of

the Coat of Arms is not going to be something that anybody can take -

What is wrong with that member? I can never thing of his name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber East.

MR. MANNING: The Member for

Humber East, the snipe, the sandbagger, the president of the Liberal sandbagger

club. He says so much, then he never gets on his feet. I can't understand

that. You have an opportunity to stand on your feet and say a few words, I say

to the Member for Humber East. Get up and say something. Put it in Hansard so we

can have a look and see exactly what you say. I listened to the member - oh, I

never thought of that. Where is Friday's Hansard? Hold on now, until I get out

Friday's Han sard.

It was interesting, the questions today during Question Period concerning

concerns raised in health care in relation to doctors in the Province. I

certainly have a concern in my district, down in St. Mary's, and it is an

opportunity for me to say a few words on that in relation to trying to get a

permanent doctor in St. Mary's. I was surprised, like many other people here,

to hear the member put forward the other day... Mr. Lush put forward some

unparliamentary, I suppose, in one sense, but it wasn't hitting anybody here

within - Is this Friday's? Yes. Find that for me, will you? - the concerns put

forward that some of the problems we have in health care in this Province in

relation to the arrogance of doctors. It certainly concerned the Member for Cape

St. Francis to the point where he had to get on his feet today during Question

Period and question it. It is certainly something that concerns me, as a rural

Member of the House of Assembly, seeking to have a doctor in the district. The

comments went like this: It may stem from a certain

arrogance that doctors themselves have established by making you and I wait for

appointments.

That is really uncalled for. Here we are discussing the Coat of Arms today,

the importance that the Coat of Arms has to the Province, and the importance

that the Coat of Arms has to every individual in Newfoundland and Labrador. It

represents us, the Coat of Arms. Then we have a Member of the House of Assembly

who gets on his feet, who represents a group, an area here in the district, talk

about the arrogance that doctors themselves have established by making you and I

wait for an appointment.

Mr. Speaker, I would say a lot of the problems with health care in the

Province - and the member should listen too, because he had some health concerns

back a few years ago. He was lucky he wasn't in Newfoundland when he had his

problem. He was in another country where he got some immediate help. He might

have been on a three-month waiting list here, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

Then you might not be here at all. So, you are lucky I say to the Member for

Bellevue. You are lucky that, when you did have your

health problem, you were not in Newfoundland at the time, that you were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the waiting lists, not the doctors, not the nurses.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the waiting lists. He is

lucky he was not in the Province at the time; because, if he had to be put on a

waiting list in this Province, it might be four or five months after he had his

health problem that he would be dealt with. Then, if everything went well, he

might not be dealt with for four or five months after that. Then we might not be

dealing with him at all, I say to the member, because he might not even be here

to deal with.

I say to the Member for Humber East, get up on your feet. If you have

something to say, get up on your feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, I will get

some advice from the sandbagger. You knew what you were talking about until you

got sandbagged, I say to the Member for Humber East. You didn't know what you

were talking about, either, until the boss hauled in your reins. Don't you

give advice on knowing what to talk about, I say to the Member for Humber East.

What I am talking about here is something that represents Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is the Coat of Arms. I cannot understand why the crowd up in the

nosebleed

section are all excited. I say, just hold on until I get a chance to

say a few words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about something here -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What was that from the Member for Bellevue?

MR. BARRETT: I said you are

that far back from the back benches, you can't (inaudible) at all.

MR. MANNING: The only difference, I say to the Member for Bellevue, is

that some day I will be in the front but you will still be in the back.

AN HON. MEMBER: In your dreams.

MR. MANNING: Dare to dream, I say to the Member for Humber East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Humber East, I am willing to sit and

stand here on this side of the House and wait my turn. I say, in all honesty, I

am willing to wait my turn. Now, I could rush that up a bit. I could get up

tomorrow morning and walk over there and I might be a minister in a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. MANNING: Let's take it

a step at a time. Help me out here, boys. I was in here in 1993 to 1996. I was

in here and the people decided, Mr. Speaker. The people made a decision. The

(inaudible) of 1993 to 1996 and the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation was sitting shoulder to shoulder with me. Then he happened to

stop and went into the washroom in Deer Lake or Stephenville - was it Deer Lake

or Stephenville? - at the airport and lo and behold, who was in the washroom but

the Premier. They had a little chat. Remind (inaudible).

They had a little chat, and when they came out of the washroom the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation decided he was going to go over on that side.

I said in my own mind then -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's

only one Tory.

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, that's

only one Tory. I am going to get through him first. Then the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation went over and I said to myself: Now he's a fool.

He is going to be up in the nosebleed

section now for the next three or four

years. He is going to be up where your oxygen mask drops down every now and

again so you can breath and we know that you are still up there. I said: He's

a fool to do that. Then the next thing I know he is walking into Government

House being sworn in a s a minister.

I look over at the Member for Bellevue, as an example, who has been a Liberal

since the day he came into the world, and he is still up in the nosebleed

section. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is enjoying all the

finery that comes with the minister's office. Then we look over across the

floor and we have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, another good

Tory. He ran for this party in 1989. He ran for the nomination for this party in

1989, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Decides -

AN HON. MEMBER: A member of the 500 Club.

MR. MANNING: A member of the 500

Club, Mr. Speaker. He decides that he is going to walk over and check out that

side of the scene. He walks over and the next thing we know, he is a minister.

Thanks be to God that the premier of the day had sense enough to take him out of

the Ministry of Health. Thanks be to God. He put her on the skids. Thanks be to

God he took him out of the Ministry of Health, but I'm saying is that he still

became a minister in the government. Those are two good Tories.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Julie?

MR. MANNING: Yes, she ran

for us too, didn't she? Sure, my God, I can't keep track of them all. How

many Tories are over there, Mr. Speaker? Then you have the Minister of Human

Resources and Employment, another good Tory who ran for us, ran for the

nomination. That's three. Let me have a look around. Oh my gosh, I am almost

forgot, the Minister of Environment and Labour. Sure, he was elected as a Tory.

He came in here and decided over on this side that things were not too exciting

or whatever the case may b e. He did not like the way

things worked over here so he decided to take the jaunt over to the other side.

Where he is today? He is a minister. That is four. If I sit back now and size it

up -

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) Bill Matthews now.

MR. MANNING: Bill Matthews

is a good friend of mine, I say to the Member for Humber East. He is a good

friend of mine. I'm talking about the Tories that were on this side of the

House that now are sitting around the Cabinet table while all you good -

supposedly good - solid Liberals on that side are still up in the nosebleed

section. That is what I am saying, I say to the Member for Humber East. I can't

understand it, so it must be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Here we have the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he

was with the other party, the one down here in that section. That is the food

service

section down here. That is down in that section. The Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs was down with them for a while. Now he is over there

in the Cabinet. So what I want to ask here is: What are the credentials or the

criteria to get into Cabinet? You have to be a Tory. You have to be an NDP. You

have to get involved with this side of the House and then walk over to that side

of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything but a Liberal.

MR. MANNING: You have to be anything but a Liberal to be in Cabinet. If I

was sitting up in the top section, if I was sitting back where the Member for

Humber East is sitting, I would be asking myself: Am I good enough to get up to

the front? Will I be good enough to get into the second row? Even if I could

make it to the second row there might some hope. If the Member for Humber East

could make it to the second row there might be some hope that he could get to

the first row.

The only time the Member for Bellevue gets down to the front row is when the

Premier is not around and he comes down just to sit down and take it easy. I

say, the Member for Humber East is up in the back. He, the Member for Bellevue,

the Member for Topsail, and several other members that are over there must ask

yourselves: What is the criteria? What do I have to do in order to be in the

minister's office?

The first thing you have to do it that you have to be elected a Tory or you

have to run for the Tory party. The Minister of Municipal Affairs knows all

about that, I say. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is a good solid Tory. We

are pleased on this side of the House to have some good Tory representation at

the Cabinet table. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is one of the best Torys in

the Province. It is good to have this Tory representation sitting at this table,

because therefore we get the solid policies developed on this side of the House

brought to the Cabinet table.

The only part that concerns me