November

24, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 70

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I apologise to the Leader of

the Opposition and the members of the Opposition generally. I didn't have time

to prepare a statement as I only just arrived back in the city at 1:30. I wanted

to report to the House generally on the discussions I held yesterday with the

Prime Minister because I think they're matters of importance to this House.

We discussed in the main the economic and employment

situation in the Province, discussed it in historical terms, and looked at the

current situation in the context of the historical situation in the Province. We

also looked at it in the context of the impact of the existing recession on the

unemployment figures, and also the impact prior to the cod fishery moratorium

and the impact subsequent to the cod fishery moratorium, and the figures are

quite striking.

We discussed the need to address the issue from two

particular points of view, meeting the short-term needs and problems of both the

fishery and non-fishery sector. For the most part the short-term needs of those

involved in the fishery are being met by the federal compensation program. I

expressed the appreciation of the people of the Province to the Prime Minister

for the federal government's contribution in this regard. We also discussed it

in terms of the need to address the longer term restructuring problems of the

economy generally, and the changes that will need to be made in order to meet

the changing circumstances in the fishery.

We also discussed in substantial detail the approach of the

two governments to dealing with these problems, in particular in the context of

the provincial Strategic Economic Plan, and compared that with the approach

taken by the federal government in their Prosperity Initiative. The similarities

between the two approaches, Mr. Speaker, are quite striking. We also pointed out

to the Prime Minister that of the fifty-four specific proposals in the

Prosperity Initiative, thirty-six of them would require action by the provinces

in order to implement.

I also discussed with him the benefits to the federal

government of an improvement in the economy in this Province. For every dollar

of direct revenue the provincial government would get as a result of economic

improvement in the Province, the federal government would get at least four to

five dollars directly. If you took into account the increased unemployment

insurance contributions and the reduced unemployment insurance payments, it's up

to about ten to one in terms of the relative benefits to the two governments. So

both the Prime Minister and Mr. Crosbie I think saw very clearly the importance

of the two governments working together to achieve this kind of economic

improvement.

The solution, we agreed, is joint action, but we have to bear

in mind that there are limitations both on the federal and provincial

governments in terms of the funding that's available to implement any joint

action. So we discussed the way to deal with that.

Members will remember that when the Strategic Economic Plan

was announced it was indicated that it would require about $384 million over the

next five years to fully implement. We discussed the ways in which that might be

achieved with the Prime Minister and Mr. Crosbie and we agreed that for the most

part that funding is available under the existing cooperation agreements. The

funding already committed by the two governments under those existing

cooperation agreements can largely carry out the full implementation of the

plan. As well you have to take into account the large sums that CEIC spends in

the province, and when you put all of that into context its clear that within

the existing funding plans a great deal of this economic improvement can be

carried out. We put forward, or I put forward, to the Prime Minister a specific

proposal as to how to deal with it. He is going to consider that proposal and

get back to me after the federal minister of finance makes his statement on the

financial state of the country to the House on December 2.

We also discussed joint management in the fishery and for the

first time I feel that we got a full hearing on the issue, with both Mr. Crosbie

and the Prime Minister present. I am satisfied there is no insurmountable

federal objection as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, and it remains now

for me to work with Mr. Crosbie and the Prime Minister to achieve an acceptable

approach to joint management. We put forward to the Prime Minister at his

request a specific suggestion as to how it can be achieved, that also will be

discussed further with him in the near future.

We discussed the national transportation policy and

initiative that they are proposing to take and again we put forward a specific

proposal. Particularly with reference to involvement with the Trans-Labrador

Highway and the completion of a complete circle around the gulf of St. Lawrence,

and I had the impression the Prime Minister was in fact quite intrigued by that

proposal.

We discussed as well other matters, I do not want to deal

with them in any detail. We discussed at great length the existing national and

provincial financial situation. The financial situation in the nation as a whole

is not alone caused by the fact that there is a massive federal deficit owed

each year for the last decade or so and that that has accumulated a massive

debt. As well as the federal government involvement there, all of the provinces,

or most of the provinces have been having significant deficits and this as well

has piled up a great deal of debt and more and more of that debt is held outside

of Canada. There is great concern, both at the national and provincial level, as

to our ability to manage that debt properly in the future. So there has to be a

continuation of restraint over the next period of time. We agreed on that and I

expect we will hear more fully the federal position on the issue when the

statement is made on December 2.

I talked to him about continuation of aboriginal land

negotiations in the context of also discussing some level of self-government as

we had proposed discussing with the Labrador Inuit prior to the resent

constitutional talks. The Prime Minister has assured me that he has no

objections to the province continuing along those lines. There would, of course,

not be any constitutional change involved, it would be negotiation directly. I

talked, as well, about other matters of great importance to the Province, the

existing state of affairs as far as Hibernia is concerned - we discussed that at

some length. I also discussed the Canadian Airlines situation. I don't know

whether a release has been made this morning or not - it was suggested that

there would be - but I think one is due shortly that will spell out the federal

government's position and we will know more fully when I have heard that.

Mr. Speaker, again, I apologise to members that I have not

had a prepared copy of it but there just has not been time, and I thought the

House would want to hear this report as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We would

have preferred to have a written statement, as well, but we realize that with

the Premier's late arrival in the Province that was probably not humanly or

physically possible.

I just want to react and say that the Leader of the

Opposition is on his way to the West Coast; that is why he is not here today.

But I guess it was incumbent upon the Premier to go to Ottawa to meet the Prime

Minister and talk about the economic and employment problems and the situation

we find ourselves in, in the Province, particularly in an historical context.

I want to say to the Premier, with all the talk about

strategic economic plans and the prosperity initiative with the Federal

Government, I hope that soon we will see some action. Because all this talk, all

these studies, and all these brochures and pamphlets are not doing much to help

the economy of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people it is helping

are those who compile it and those who print it. And, Mr. Speaker, I think it

would be fair to say, with what is going on in the Province over the last number

of weeks, that we are on the verge of becoming unglued economically in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is very, very serious, and going up with cap in hand to

the Prime Minister is not going to resolve it. I hope the federal government is

sympathetic, I hope they do take some initiatives in the next short while, to

help stimulate the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, the country

in general, but we need some action from the Premier and his government, as

well, Mr. Speaker. It is just not good enough to make a visit to Ottawa now, and

as the situation worsens in this Province, finger pointing will begin once more

and blame will be shifted to other people.

There should be joint action, certainly. We call for joint

action. We support the government in asking for joint action. But the Premier

referred to the statement that will come down soon from the Federal Government,

the federal financial statement, and from all indications, Mr. Speaker, that is

going to be just as bleak as, or bleaker than the minibudget that we are

expecting the Premier's government to deliver in the next few days. So I don't

know what help the federal financial statement is going to be to people

throughout this country, because if you look at it realistically, the Federal

Government is in a worst financial situation than the Province. When one looks

at the percentage on the dollar that goes to retiring debt, the federal

situation is worse than the financial situation in Newfoundland and Labrador. So

really, what help we can expect from the Federal Government, I am not sure, but

I do hope that they certainly can take some action that will help this Province

and help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Joint management in the fishery - I really hope we will see

developments in that area. Doubtless, if there is one area where we need

improvements, it is fisheries management; but I can't let it go unnoticed, Mr.

Speaker, I say that I think we have wasted a couple of good years. We could have

had some fisheries initiatives if it had been high enough on the priority list

of this Premier and this government - I say that very sincerely.

I think we missed a golden opportunity, two years ago, to

place fisheries management on the national agenda, and we failed to do that. I

think there is one person in this Province, in this country, that has to take

responsibility for that, and that is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

think it is a little too late.

The national transportation policy, particularly with the

Trans-Labrador Highway: Just a couple of weeks ago we saw the Member for Eagle

River bring a resolution to the floor on Private Members' Day. We knew what that

was all about when it happened. The Premier has verified that. We knew that

would be on the discussion agenda for the Premier and the Prime Minister. We are

not surprised. We supported the member's resolution then, and we sincerely hope,

again, the Federal Government will take action, that we will see some work in

that area, that it will materialize and we will see the beginning of

construction.

So, without copy of a written statement, Mr. Speaker, I just

want to emphasize to the Premier and his government that we really need to see

action from this government. The people of the Province are getting in a pretty

testy mood, as we have seen over the last forty-eight hours or so; and unless

this government takes action to deal with the economy, and to try to settle down

the unions and so on, I think we are in for some pretty turbulent times over the

next few weeks in this Province. I call upon the Premier to take action to try

to address it, and try to get the economy of this Province moving - take some

initiative of your own. Don't always go looking for someone else to do the job

for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I ask leave to address the statement of the

Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave of the

House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may proceed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great regret that we have to see the Premier

return from Ottawa on this trip empty-handed, as it were, and without really any

consoling news for the people of this Province.

The Statement of the Premier today, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The statement contains no consoling news for

the people of this Province. What the Premier is talking about in terms of both

the short and long term provides no extraordinary measures, which is what is

needed right now for the short term, and even the long term.

The proposals seem to include the renegotiating of existing

federal/provincial agreements, and no new money from federal sources, from our

co-operative partners in Confederation, Mr. Speaker. I find it very

disconcerting to hear that, despite the fact that even in the best of times, Mr.

Speaker, this Province is way behind national standards in terms of employment,

in term of job opportunities and educational opportunities for our people, there

is no acknowledgement in the Premier's statement that the system in place in

this country is not working, Mr. Speaker. We cannot continue to rely totally on

the private sector to resolve our problems. There must be joint federal and

provincial massive intervention into the Newfoundland economy to bring about

some changes that are necessary. Until we hear that, Mr. Speaker, I regret to

say that we will be hearing more doom and gloom from this government.

I take no real consolation, Mr. Speaker, in the talk of joint

management of the fisheries. The way the Province has been handling its side of

the fisheries issue in the last number of months leads me to believe that what

we will have is joint mismanagement, Mr. Speaker, not joint management.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. The

International Fund for Animal Welfare has undertaken a substantial, significant

large advertising campaign - I see the Member for Port de Grave holding up - Mr.

Speaker, a substantial advertising campaign.

I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries could inform the people

whether or not the Provincial Government, particularly his Department of

Fisheries, is going to undertake any kind of a campaign to counter the

information that is being distributed and the campaign of the International Fund

for Animal Welfare? Will the Province be doing anything to counter that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, at the moment we have no such

plans. The ads that appeared in the Globe and Mail today, the two full-page ads,

I suppose, is the sort of thing we can expect. I understand that the group in

question are now on the threshold of embarking on a fund-raising exercise, and I

suppose that is the way they have to go about doing it. Naturally, the

information contained therein is, to some extent, inaccurate. I suppose, to most

Newfoundlanders it is almost sickening to see that sort of thing happen. Quite

frankly, I don't think there is too much we can do about it. If they want to

spend their money buying expensive ads in The Globe and Mail, there's nothing we

can do to stop them.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think it's incumbent upon

the provincial government - the minister has alluded to misrepresentations that

are in the advertising by the IFAW. Who else would you expect to take up the

campaign to correct this misinformation if it's not the government representing

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: So having said that, will the minister

reconsider, and will government reconsider, at least putting out the facts on

what we know? There is scientific information available on seals and diet, upon

codfish and diet. So doesn't the minister think that it's incumbent on him, as

the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador, to correct the

misinformation that IFAW is providing to not only people of Canada, but people

of the world?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, to do that might have the

opposite affect, in that it would just create the kind of head-on collision that

would benefit the animal rights people and would just give them more publicity.

I don't think we should do that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the

Minister of Fisheries believe that the seal population is having a negative

impact upon our cod stocks? Does he believe that the seal population is having a

negative impact upon the cod stocks, whether by eating cod directly or by eating

parts of the food chain that cod would normally eat? Either way, does the

minister think that the seal herds are impacting negatively on our cod stocks?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the question hardly deserves an

answer but I will answer it. Of course I believe it's having an impact, and

we've been saying that both through the national news media and through the

local news media, as late as last Friday in Ottawa when we met with the Minister

of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, and the other provincial ministers. The matter was

raised and I had something to say on it and again repeated what we've been

saying all along, that the seal population has had a very detrimental affect on

the cod stocks. So I don't know what more we can say or where else we can say

it. It's been said many, many times, both in Ottawa, in the national press, in

the international press, and of course in the local press.

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

House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very serious

situation. It's been proven that seals either eat cod or they eat caplin, or

shrimp, or other species that cod consumes. So either way, if it's not eating

cod directly and destroying the cod stocks, it's taking care of the food chain

so that there's less cod. Let me ask a supplementary to the Premier, let me ask

the Premier: Will the Premier give serious consideration to his government

undertaking an advertising campaign across Canada and the world to counter the

misinformation and misrepresentation that the International Fund for Animal

Welfare is promoting?

I don't think there's too many people will question that the

seal population has to be controlled. I believe the Premier is on record as

saying that a number of times, that the seal population has to be controlled.

Will the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador undertake a campaign of that

nature to try and help if nothing else Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

depend so greatly upon our cod resources?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I saw the photograph and the

advertisement in The Globe and Mail yesterday. I saw it again this morning.

That's part of the fraudulent campaign that the International Fund for Animal

Welfare has been carrying on now for fifteen years, that I'm aware of. It's the

means of their raising money. Money must be getting a bit tight so out comes the

advertising and in will come the dollars again. They've been doing that year

after year for the last fifteen years.

Now anybody who looks at that photograph and that

advertisement in The Globe and Mail today will know that that in itself is a

fraud. It's a concocted photograph. The fishermen who fished seals didn't kill

them with baseball bats. They killed them with hakapiks, is it, they're called?

The clubs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gaffs.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes. Gaffs. They didn't go out swinging

baseball bats. Somebody posed for that picture and now it's presented as the

normal way of doing things. It's part of the fraud they've been perpetrating on

the public of North America and Europe for years to raise the funds that they've

raised to keep them going.

I remember Brian Davies, the president of the International

Fund for Animal Welfare, another part of his fraud, when he was convicted in

court in Bonne Bay and sentenced to two weeks in jail; he appealed to the

district court. They arrived at the district court on the morning the appeal was

to be heard, only to find that the IFAW had already released publicly, all over

North America, a statement saying that Mr. Davies' conviction had been confirmed

and he was led away to jail between two scarlet coated Mounted Policemen - an

absolute fraud. It never occurred, and it was printed even before the matter

went to court. That is part of their fraudulent ways. Everybody knows and

understands that.

Mr. Speaker, we will have to give some consideration as to

whether or not it is necessary for this Province to spend a significant sum of

money. Those kinds of advertisements in the Globe and Mail are not inexpensive.

They cost large sums of money, and we do not have the kind of sums of money we

can just throw at the publishers of the Globe and Mail or any other major

newspaper. We will have to give some consideration to what is necessary to cope

with this kind of continued fraudulent campaign to try and stir up action

against reasonable and rational and sensible natural management of the seal

herds, which everybody in their right mind would agree is sensible if we are to

protect the full resources of the sea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: My questions are for the Premier.

Does the Premier realize that the gypsum plant in Corner

Brook - the only manufacturer of gypsum wallboard and polybead in the Province -

has been closed since last Spring, and has operated for only two weeks this

year? Why has the Premier been so passive and quiet during the prolonged

shutdown of the plant? Can the Premier today give any hope to people that the

gypsum plant will reopen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been aware of

every single day that the plant has been closed. I have met with the union

representatives. I have met with representatives of Lundrigan's. I have met with

representatives of the group that has put forward a proposal to provide for the

reopening of it. Government has agreed to provide guarantees for loans to enable

the purchase of the assets from the receiver to enable it to be reopened. Most

of the details have been worked out.

Now I have been away for the last few days so I know, right

up until the time that I left, there were further meetings and discussions in

progress, even until the day that I left. I do not know that it is finalized or

that it has been finalized. I will attempt to find out today where the matter

stands, and if the hon. member wants to, I will bring the information back to

the House tomorrow.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like the Premier to tell the House when he expects

the gypsum plant to operate again; and does the Premier realize that the longer

the plant is shut, the harder it will be to regain markets?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of that,

and that is one of the matters that have been discussed. I cannot say when I

expect it to operate again, because the government is not going to operate it.

It is only going to operate if somebody in the private sector purchases the

assets and continues its operation.

Mr. Speaker, the government has worked diligently over the

last number of months to try and work together with the people who are

interested in putting forward this proposal, to cause it to be done. I am

hopeful that it will come into fruition very soon, but again I will undertake to

get the specifics as to where matters stand right at this moment, and report

back to the House tomorrow.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can it ever be true, I ask the Premier, that during the past

months while the gypsum plant has been closed, and the total economy of the

Province has been in free-fall, that for his extravagant office renovations he

imported designer wallpaper from Spain?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it cannot be true, and no

matter how many times the members of the opposition ask and suggest it, without

a modicum of intellectual honesty amongst all of them who are putting it

forward, it does not make it true.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is it ever possible, I ask the Premier, that the wall

covering recently brought to the Premier's office, and then stored on the fourth

floor, awaiting the ongoing stripping out of 1985 pine ceilings and other

expensive fixtures, was imported from the very nation that has been most guilty

of raping the cod stocks outside our 200-mile limit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is possible that

Mr. Armstrong brought it back from the moon, it is theoretically possible. You

could ask any question and say is it possible? Theoretically, anything in this

world is possible, yes. Is it probable? I certainly do not think so. Do I have

any knowledge of it - I certainly would not have anything to do with it, whether

or not somebody else did, I don't know, but again, I will undertake to find out,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

The minister was recently at an Aids conference or at an Aids

forum and he told participants there that between 30 to 50 per cent of all

medical procedures performed by doctors were unnecessary. Now, is the minister

convinced that these stats are true for this Province, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and where is he getting that information?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual the member is misrepresenting something that

occurred at a conference he did not attend. What I did say was that the Minister

of Health in Ontario was throwing around these figures. At the same time I

quoted with some approval, not necessarily the exact figures but the notion that

there were medical procedures which doctors realize are unnecessary and that

medical practise is changing and some surgical procedures which were performed

years ago are no longer performed or very rarely performed. Like everyone used

to get their tonsils out years ago, they do not do them anymore, or very rarely,

and things of that nature. It is estimated by many people, including the medical

association, that sometimes things are done that are not necessary and fairly

frequently.

There is a committee set up, a peer review committee, to look

at medical practise to see that unnecessary procedures are not carried out, so

it is a serious question. It is not done deliberately, it is just done through -

I do not know what the cause of it is but it is a serious concern to people, to

health people generally in Canada and elsewhere that there are procedures

carried out that are not appropriate. Not only that, but they are very costly,

they are extremely costly and that is the point that was being made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Well, I take what the minister said was that

in procedures in Newfoundland between 30 and 50 per cent of these are being

performed unnecessarily, with the exception, as the minister mentioned of

tonsils. I guess tonsillectomies would be the right term, with the exception of

that, can the minister tell us what kinds of procedures being performed by the

doctors are being considered by the minister to be unnecessary?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not going to

practise medicine, I do not have a license so I am not going to practise

medicine, but I am responsible for health care in this Province as far as the

government is concerned, and one of the matters that is seriously considered

across Canada are these medical procedures which may not be necessary. In fact I

have held a number of discussions with people in the medical profession and

bodies representing people who are concerned about that. I do not want to go

into details now, I prefer not to, but one of the ways of improving the health

care system, getting better value for the dollars we spend is to look carefully

at the procedures that are in place and to concentrate on those that are

productive and to put less emphasis on those that are unproductive.

One of the serious things, Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows,

is often the misuse of medicines; the oversupply of medicines that many people

take. Many seniors, for instance, take four and five different kinds of pills. I

visit my constituents and sometimes I hear: I get me pills mixed-up, I got a

bottle of this and a bottle of that and a bottle of something else, and that is

true. The medical profession and pharmaceutical profession are very seriously

concerned about the over use of medications and that is another procedure that

we can discuss.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, as the minister is aware, the

health care system of Newfoundland and labrador is about to be cut to the bone,

he has asked the people who deliver the health care system to come back with

cuts in the not too distant future, and in view of that, can the minister tell

us why, in his view, doctors here in this Province, where there is not a great

deal of money for health care, why would doctors be performing these unnecessary

procedures on their patients? Can the minister shed some light on it?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't speculate as to why.

Perhaps it is through habit or perhaps it is through not knowing the latest, but

I shouldn't be speculating. What I should be saying is that I am reflecting the

concerns of professionals in the medical profession and I am reflecting them to

the members of the House in answer to this question.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member for Fogo yield to the

hon. Member for Harbour Main?

MR. WINSOR: Yes.

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

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary to the minister: The

minister's statement leaves the inference of either malpractice or incompetence

on the part of the medical profession. Is that what he intended to do, to lay a

basis for justifying further cuts to the health care system?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker. I have great confidence in

the medical profession and the health care professionals.

As I mentioned recently in the House, I visited just about

every hospital in the Province. I haven't been to the hospital in Churchill

Falls yet but, apart from that, I have been in every hospital, I have been in

virtually every nursing home except three, and many personal care homes. I have

seen the type of care that people are giving, the health care professionals,

physicians, nurses, nurses aids, the people who work in the kitchens and the

people who sweep the floors. I can assure members opposite and, in fact, all the

people of Newfoundland, that we have extremely good, dedicated people in the

health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Since yesterday, when the minister made his statements with

respect to uniform tax rates for utility companies, a number of municipalities

in this Province have raised serious concerns about how they will be affected.

Surely before the minister implemented such a program, he had consultations with

numerous municipalities. Can the minister tell us how much revenue is presently

collected under the system in place now, how much will be collected by a flat

rate, and will he generally tell us what communities are going to benefit and

which ones will be harmed as a result?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no way, time nor

paper that would permit me this evening to enumerate all the municipalities that

would lose or benefit. But there are great variances in the losses and gains,

mainly because there was a terrifically high rate applied to the assessments

that were rendered onto some of the equipment and materials of the utility

companies. After twenty-five or thirty years of pondering between the Federation

of Municipalities and the Province, something had to be done to make the playing

field a little more level than it was, and that is what this legislation

attempts to do.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Surely the minister is not suggesting that this change took

place without input from municipalities as to the effect it would have.

Let me ask the minister this then: There is also a 2.5 per

cent tax now on unincorporated municipalities in the Province. Can the minister

tell us how many communities will be taxed - he should know that - and how much

revenue will accrue to the Province as a result of this one, because this is a

massive tax grab for the Province as well.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any tax

grab by the Province. We have asked for the figures for 1992, of what the exact

payout by the utility companies will be. In 1991, for example, I could tell the

House that Newfoundland Tel, for example, was paying $4.5 million in taxes. It

is estimated with the 2.5 that the taxes would amount to $4.8 million.

Newfoundland Power's taxes would increase drastically from $4.6 million in 1991

dollars to $7.1 million in 1991 dollars. That is to the incorporated

municipalities.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the municipalities are getting less and there is more

revenue, then the bulk of it must go to the Province. Mr. Speaker, since local

service districts perform a similar role as councils, yet they have no powers to

impose taxes, why doesn't the minister allow the unincorporated municipalities

or towns to be recipients of the taxes collected instead of having the revenues

go to the Province? Why doesn't he give it to the local service districts as

well?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The minister is not giving anything to

anybody, Mr. Speaker. The minister is just introducing legislation that has been

discussed for, as I say, over twenty-five years now, thirty years, probably.

Between all municipalities, the federation, and the Province. From year to year,

almost month to month, positions have been changed on that. As all hon. members

know across the way, they struggled with it for years, and it was something that

had to be done sooner or later and it happened to fall on this particular watch.

The non-incorporated communities in the Province don't have

the mechanism in place. I've taken under advertisement his facetious and

sarcastic remark with reference to the local service districts. If there's a

means of these local service districts accruing any benefits from this type of

taxation I'm sure the Province will do everything in its power to endeavour to

see that it's done.

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

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

Since the minister's statement yesterday didn't allow for a phase-in of the

revised tax structure with MOGs steadily declining and debt charges increasing,

some municipalities have been informed this morning that they're going to lose

as much as $60,000 to $70,000 off the present revenues for their 1993 budget.

Let me ask the minister: how does he expect municipalities to be able to balance

their budgets in light of declining revenues from government and now declining

revenues from utility companies?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Municipalities for years, Mr. Speaker, have

always managed to survive. I don't say that in any facetious context. If they

cannot meet the obligation of balancing their budget they will come and discuss

it with us and negotiate it with us as they've usually done, working together to

overcome this temporary set-back for some, and a gift for others, that I'm sure

that working together we can overcome any difficulties that might be

encountered.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was going

to be to the Minister responsible for wildlife. However, in his absence I would

like to ask the question to the former minister responsible for wildlife, the

Minister of Environment. Would the minister advise this House if any changes

have taken place with respect to regulations concerning Sunday hunting while she

was the minister responsible for wildlife?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologise. The Minister of

Tourism and Culture, who's responsible for wildlife, had to leave to catch a

flight for a ministerial conference. I'll certainly take the question under

advisement and report back to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question to the

Minister of Environment. When she was minister responsible for wildlife were

there any changes in her department pertaining to Sunday hunting?

MR. ROBERTS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the Beauchesne

citation but I can look it up if need be. A minister may not be asked, it's

quite clear, for matters which occurred during the time when he or she may have

been a minister of the Crown. One may be asked only in respect to the matters

for which one is currently responsible. It would be out of order, for example,

for me to ask the hon. gentleman from Torngat Mountains why he authorised the

expenditure of $125,000 on a washroom for himself when he was Minister of

Labrador Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the normal procedure is, if the

minister is not here, to ask the minister who is acting in that position. The

most appropriate authority I can quote now is Beauchesne, 406: "A question may

not be asked of a Member who is no longer a Minister, seeking information with

regard to transactions during that person's term of office." I also concur with

the Government House Leader - and I'll look for the quote - that it is not

appropriate to ask questions of a minister regarding their previous portfolio.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to ask the question to the Premier. Can the Premier advise if there have

been any changes in the regulations pertaining to Sunday hunting in the last two

years? Have there been any changes made by his government pertaining to Sunday

hunting in the last two years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: My recollection, Mr. Speaker, is that that

matter did come up a short time ago but I don't have adequate recollection to

state confidently what it might or might not be. So I'd rather take the question

under advisement. I'll bring the information back to the House, or the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology will.

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

Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to ask the Premier: in the hunting guide of 1990-1991 it says it is

unlawful to hunt any game on Sunday. In the hunting guide of 1992-93, it says:

it is unlawful to hunt any game on Sunday with a fire arm. Well, I ask the

Primer, does that mean now, that those hunters who are successful in obtaining a

licence to hunt game with bow and arrow are allowed to hunt on Sunday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I feel the answer is still

the same. I do not have sufficient recollection of all the detail that Cabinet

has done over the last year or two to be able to spit that answer back at the

member with confidence that I am giving him accurate information. I still say,

either I or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will take the matter

under advisement and we will report back to the House tomorrow.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier

and relates to the recent ruling by the International Labour Organization, one

of the most prestigious international bodies in the world, composed of the

and union representatives. The International Labour Organization has said, Mr.

Speaker, in the ruling on the Newfoundland Government's actions, that the 1991

Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act went beyond normally acceptable limits

that might be placed temporarily on collective bargaining and further stated

that such restrictions can only in the long term prejudice and destabilize the

labour relations climate. Is the Premier, Mr. Speaker, man enough to acknowledge

the criticism and will he tell the House and admit that in fact his government

went to far with that restraint legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The honourable member conveniently

overlooked a significant number of factors that one has to take into account.

That international labour organization, making that comment about the

of dealing with a severe financial situation - it is sort of like my saying, I

disagree with the way the Russian government is handling a certain matter. Well

I may disagree with it, I might do it differently if I were there, but it is

easy for me to disagree with it because I do not have responsibility to deal

with the factual circumstances that they do. So it is great for this heady well

paid group in Vienna somewhere or Geneva wherever they are, to sit and make

great pronouncements about what is right and fair and proper and so on, to be

done in Canada or in Newfoundland or Ontario or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick,

when they have absolutely no responsibility for anything except the preservation

of their own positions. It is easy for them to make those kinds of

condemnations. They do not have to find the tax money to pay it, they do not

have to decide what hospital or education services to cut out in order to pay

it.

Now Mr. Speaker, the government took the proper approach, the

government took the proper approach, we went to the unions and said look let us

sit down and negotiate an alternative way of dealing with these difficult

circumstances - they turned their backs on us. The great leadership of the

unions in this Province, turned their backs on their members and walked out and

refused to deal with it on a proper basis. We would have sat and negotiated and

discussed it with them. They turned their backs on it and walked away. Mr.

Speaker, the government of this Province is responsible, not alone to the

members of NAPE or CUPE or other organizations representing employees or people

paid from the public purse. The government of this Province is responsible to

the entire population to see that everybody is fairly treated and that is

exactly what we intend to do. In particular, Mr. Speaker, we are not responsible

to the International Labour Organization in Geneva.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

The Chair would now like to read the appropriate quotation

from Beauchesne re the point of order raised by the Government House Leader, and

it is page 120, clause 409, section (6) which says: "A question must be within

the administrative competence of the Government. The Minister to whom the

question is directed is responsible to the House for his or her present Ministry

and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio."

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the following motion:

WHEREAS the huge seal population is having a devastating

effect on the fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the seal harvest has been a legitimate and profitable

part of our heritage as a people of this Province; and

WHEREAS the concerns of animal rights extremists should not

be put before the concerns of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on

record and condemn the falsehoods being spread by these animal right extremists

and that the House of Assembly support the resumption of an environmentally

sustainable seal harvest off the coast of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Motions 1 and 2, please, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motions 1 and 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," carried. (Bill No.

58).

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

entitled, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act," carried. (Bill No.

57).

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," (Bill No. 58)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act,"

(Bill No. 57)

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated at the

adjournment last evening, we shall ask Your Honour to call Bill No. 38, which I

think is Order No. 12, that is, the adjourned debate on the Medical Act, and

then we will carry on, assuming we finish with Orders 17 and 18 which stand, in

fact, in the name of the former Minister of Health, but I assume the correction

will be made and they will stand in the name of my colleague, the Minister of

Health. After that, I have a long menu which I will share with my friend for

Grand Bank, assuming we get on with it.

Thank you, Sir.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday afternoon, I adjourned the debate on the bill to

amend the Department of Health Act, not the Medical Act, I say to the Minister

of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, potentially, this is an extremely important

Legislative measure - potentially. However, the bill does not adequately speak

its philosophy, its objectives, its purpose, or lay out the constitution of the

regional community health corporations which it authorizes the Cabinet to

create.

This simple bill, so terse, simply empowers the Cabinet

meeting in private any time at all to establish regional community health

corporations, to describe the boundaries, appoint all the members, lay out a

mandate to do everything other than provide hospital services, but, Mr. Speaker,

what does that mean? Does that mean the Cabinet could establish community

regional health boards to have lotteries?

Mr. Speaker, last spring, the minister's predecessor, the

current Minister of Education, announced the government's intention to establish

five regional community health boards and to have each of the boards carry out

five basic functions. These functions, he described in a circular diagram. I

have a copy of the diagram. In five overlapping circles, there were mapped out

five headings of responsibilities, all extremely important functions: Health

promotion; health protection; continuing care; alcohol and drug dependency; - I

hasten to add, prevention was underneath that - and mental health. Are these the

purposes for which the corporations, that the Cabinet is being empowered to

create by this legislation, would be established? If that is so, Mr. Speaker,

why aren't those purposes set out in the bill? Why doesn't this bill set out a

philosophy for the creation of regional community health boards? Why doesn't the

bill enumerate some of the objectives the government is hoping to achieve

through the establishment of the regional community health boards?

Now, I realize objectives change over time, but surely it is

possible, in legislative language, to describe in general terms what the

government has in mind. There could be a catchall phrase which would give the

Cabinet in the future the flexibility to add to the responsibilities of regional

community health boards. Why don't we have some sense of direction in the

legislation? Why are we, in the House of Assembly, being expected to give a

blank cheque to the Cabinet? Legislation passed by this House of Assembly over

the years has created corporations with a variety of public functions. Hospital

corporations are established under legislation, community colleges are

established under legislation, and in those cases there is a statement of

purpose.

I would ask the minister, when he rises to conclude this

debate on the principles of the bill, to address this question of the omission

from the legislation of the basic philosophy of the fundamental objectives for

which the regional community health boards are to be created. Are the five

functions in the minister's predecessor's circular diagram the main objectives

the government has in mind, or are there other objectives? Why aren't objectives

laid out in the legislation? Why are we, the legislators, not giving the Cabinet

some basic parameters within which they must act in creating regional community

health boards? Next, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the legislation specify the number

of regional community health boards the Cabinet may create, and why doesn't the

bill map out the boundaries of each of the regional boards?

Last spring, the Social Services Estimates Committee of this

House, in examining the proposed budget of the Department of Health, had the

opportunity of questioning the minister's predecessor and the executive of the

boards. At that time the departmental officials indicated five regional boards

would be set up; that the western regional board would be in place by this fall

- by the fall of 1992.

I will quote from the proceedings of the estimates committee,

for the benefit of the current minister. Mr. Speaker, I am now quoting: We

started this process in January. With the consultation that is required, it will

take over the next year before we have the boards established. At this stage it

appears that our plans are still on

schedule to have the first board in place in

Western Newfoundland in the fall, before the end of 1992, and as quickly as

possible thereafter, the boards in Central Newfoundland, then St. John's and

then Eastern. So, if we would, for the moment, consider that Northern is under

the Grenfell Association, although there has to be some reorganization there as

well, on the Island part of the Province there will be four community health

boards with regional representation on these boards.

Mr. Speaker, is that still the government's intention? If it

is, why is it not specified in the bill? Why does the bill not say that the

Cabinet is being authorized to appoint five regional community health boards -

one for Labrador; one for Western Newfoundland; one for Central Newfoundland;

one for Eastern Newfoundland, and one for the St. John's area? If that is the

government's plan, why is it not specified in the legislation? If the government

have a different intention now, why is that not stated in the bill?

Mr. Speaker, how many boards? What are the boundaries? Where

is the headquarters to be for each of these regional boards? St. John's will be

the headquarters for the St. John's regional board. What about the headquarters

for the Labrador board; for the Western board; for the Central; for Eastern

Newfoundland?

Mr. Speaker, the composition of the boards is completely

open-ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for

interrupting, but I have to leave for some meetings and I undertook to get an

answer to a question that the Member for Torngat Mountains raised. Do you mind

if I give that answer?

MR. SPEAKER: It is entirely up to the minister if the

member wants to yield on that.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to the

minister as long as I can have the time he takes away from me at the end of my

speaking time.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure that is okay.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: I can understand, Mr. Speaker, your calling

the member a minister. She is looking very ministerial there today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: The first question was: Are there any changes

to Sunday hunting in the last two years? The answer is, no. In fact, there are

no changes in the last three years.

The second question was: Are there any changes to the bow and

arrow regulations with respect to Sunday hunting? The bow and arrow hunting is

regarded the same as a firearm, and therefore there is no use on Sundays.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, this bill - this simple, short, terse bill

which gives a blank cheque to the Cabinet - is open-ended on the question of the

composition of the boards. It is all left up to the Cabinet. The Cabinet can

decide what the boards are supposed to do; how many; what boundaries; what

headquarters. The Cabinet may appoint the members; decide how many members.

Presumably the Cabinet may appoint the Chairperson.

Mr. Speaker, legislation should give parameters to the

Cabinet. Why does this bill not specify the number of members, or the maximum

number of members the Cabinet may appoint? And why does the bill not allow for

the election of members of regional community health boards? If these boards are

to be community agencies, as the title suggests, surely the community being

served should choose the members.

Mr. Speaker, as this administration has cut funding for

health care, for education, for other vital services, it has very selectively

replaced members of Crown corporations and agencies, who were doing a good job

and who were accountable to the people, with political cronies, with Liberal

supporters who don't make a peep when ongoing funding reductions are taking

place.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this bill has the

potential to be a very important and good legislative measure. It has that

potential. But this is the mere skeleton and we need to put some flesh on the

bones. It is not good enough to leave it up to the Cabinet - especially not this

Cabinet - meeting in secret to decide whether or not boards are set up, what

jobs they will be expected to do, what areas they will be required to serve,

where their bases will be located, how many members will be appointed, which

people will be appointed and who will chair the boards.

All we have here is a measure empowering the Cabinet to set

up corporations to do everything other than provide hospital services. Well, the

possibilities are endless. We have the government now heavily into the lottery

business through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. That has been one of the

Province's few growth industries, lotteries and undertaking, I say to the

Minister of Health - lotteries and the funeral business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smuggling.

MS. VERGE: Smuggling, one of my colleagues says. We don't

have very many growth industries these days. In recent years, hospitals, to pay

for basic hospital services, have had to get into the lottery business, have had

to get into the community fund-raising business. Is that one of the purposes the

minister has in mind for these regional community health boards?

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would call on the minister to

go back to the drawing board and return to the House with a proper legislative

measure setting out a coherent philosophy for creating community health boards,

specifying objectives, enumerating aims for improving people's health, for

promoting healthy lifestyles, for preventing illness, for providing

non-institutional care where that is more effective than hospital or nursing

home care, embracing democratic principles by providing for public election of

community health care boards. And then we will talk about it, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, I think, has some good ideas about redirecting

our health care system and putting more emphasis on disease prevention, but I am

afraid this is not an acceptable instrument to translate those ideas into

action. So, Mr. Speaker, the minister should go back to the drawing board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As my colleague said, this Bill on the surface does not seem

to be having much implications for delivery of health care in the Province, but

once we get into a thorough examination of what goes on in this Bill, as she

just said, it is just a skeleton for a much larger bill. It is all-encompassing

for the Province. It is going to result, according to the estimates committee,

which the previous minister, and I am well aware that the minister, or present

minister, was Minister of Finance then, it was a previous minister who started

this process, when he was going to combine health promotion, health protection,

continuing care, and a couple of others - alcohol and drug dependency, and

mental health - into the one board, Mr. Speaker.

It is a bit bothersome to know that Cabinet is going to have

the ultimate power in who appoints these boards. I recall quite well just

recently a local hospital committee had made recommendations to the district

hospital board for the appointment of a particular individual, and everyone in

the area had approved it. The particular member was very well thought of. Once

it reached the Cabinet level it was turned down. It was turned down because -

the only reason that we could find locally was because of the person's past

political allegiance. He was turned down because of the political stripe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Windsor - Buchans

can sit down and hold on. He can get up later.

It was turned down because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No, no, this was on a hospital board, where

Cabinet had the authority to appoint him to a regional hospital board. He was

turned down.

Mr. Speaker, can you restrain the Member for Windsor -

Buchans? He cannot contain himself today.

Mr. Speaker, the area that is being addressed in this one,

particularly as it relates to nursing homes and those types of homes in the

Province, because as this Province continues to have an aging population it is

becoming increasingly more important that we have a sound system of delivery of

health care, particularly to seniors.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously aware, and we have

seen some shifts taking place in the hospital system, in the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not try to hear conversations, or try and hear

every comment that is made, but when the Chair hears comments - particularly

comments that are unparliamentary - the Chair must make it a point to bring it

to the attention of the House.

The Chair cannot say for certain, but the Chair thought he

heard the word 'lies'. Hon. members know that is unparliamentary, and all

members, on either side of the House, are supposed to be engaged in the truth.

I would ask hon. members, please, to refrain from repeating

unparliamentary remarks because they are provocative, and not only provocative,

they are not expressions that should be used in the House.

So I would ask hon. members, please, to observe the rules of

the House. The Chair's job is to enforce them. The job of members is to follow

the rules.

Thank you.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, that was a good ruling, Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister

of Forestry and Agriculture. If he wants to get up and address remarks, he can,

but otherwise he should refrain from the utterances he is making.

As I was saying, one of the areas that this Bill is going to

cover is that of nursing homes, as they are called in the Province. If you will

bear with me for one minute minister, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I read the

minister's remarks yesterday. Here they are: "In the meantime, that is what this

amendment to the Department of Health Act is about to do. We are going to

establish regional community health boards. The purpose of that is so we can

have single point of entry into nursing homes...." Now that's what the minister

said. That's what I just said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No he didn't, Mr. Speaker, it's under this

board that they're going, Mr. Speaker. In fact that's already been in place in

certain areas of the Province. I know that the Gander district hospital board

which in the past has administered nursing homes around the loop and in a number

of areas - the Bonnews Lodge, for example, and I think the one in Lewisporte and

the one in Gander. They already have this in place. A single point entry.

It seems to be working relatively well. Seems to be. The

question of if you can make that much bigger and have it to be an effective one,

there's some question about that. What this Bill should have done is go into

great detail as to exactly how it intends to implement. There are going to be

concerns about appointments given to Cabinet. The way that this Cabinet has

already interfered with a due process out in central Newfoundland with the

hiring of a principal for the community college leaves one to wonder how

appointments will come.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, certainly a major concern. What

I would like to see the minister do - and it doesn't address it in this Bill, we

don't know where they're fitting into it - the issue of personal care homes in

the Province. How are they affected? Are they now going to fall under the

control - I'll ask the minister this and perhaps he'll address it in debate

later. Personal care homes, will they fall under this board as well, where you

in some cases subsidized and paid for by the taxpayer? Will these people also

have there a single point entry to be a criterion? Or will they remain as they

are presently run? Are they to be included? Does the minister know?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: If personal care homes are going to be

included in this, or is it just for ones that are paid for and run by the

department itself? How about personal care homes? Because if they're being

addressed then there's no mention of it made in this particular piece of

legislation, of whether personal care homes are going to be included.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly like the single point entry. I

think it's been wrong the way people have been able to get into nursing homes in

this Province as a result of knowing someone in a home and to get in on the

basis of that. That's been wrong and should change. We should also have a look

at who goes into these homes. All too often they have in the past, and still

continue to have, relatively healthy individuals going into nursing homes, where

it should be reserved for more chronic care patients. The single point entry

should resolve some of these problems. I object to the Cabinet having the power.

I think these boards could be elected as school boards or other boards are, and

give more input into the communities that are mostly affected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

just like to have a few general comments on this Bill, Bill 38, which gives the

government power I guess to appoint regional health boards, I guess they're

called.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Establish," is the word.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Establish, yes. Establish regional health

boards. Now they were given power four or five years ago to establish regional

councils - or what was that bill we did years ago that Eric Gullage had?

MR. WOODFORD: Regional services boards.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - to establish regional services boards.

Mr. Speaker, I never heard tell of them after. I don't know. There was all kinds

of reasoning why we should do it at the time. The whole purpose of it was a way

that we could abolish the Metro Board without - the government imposed a

regional services councils legislation on the Province just to get rid of the

Metro Board, which was using a shotgun to kill a sparrow, Mr. Speaker. There was

no need of it.

Now we're going to in this House of Assembly give this same

government power to establish regional health boards. Now to tell you the truth,

from reading what the minister said here I really don't know if this is good or

bad. Because the minister didn't give us any explanation, any valid reasoning

that I could find out, as to why we want to do this. If there was some kind of

an explanation from the minister, which there usually is when a bill is being

introduced, to give me the rationale of why the department or why the government

would like to do this, well maybe I could agree with it. Maybe I could support

this legislation.

I hope when the minister is closing the debate maybe he can

convince me on this side that this will be a good thing for the health care

system of our Province. Certainly it's what we're all trying to do here. We are

all trying to get over the devastation that the former Minister of Health gave

to the health system when he downgraded and deteriorated the health system in

this Province so much that he had to call the administrator of St. Clare's

Hospital so he could jump the line of the many people who are waiting in the

lines. He improved the health care system, there's no doubt about that. He

improved it for one person in this Province, he improved it for himself, because

he didn't have to deal with the problems. He just phoned up the administrator

and jumped the line and went in and got whatever blood tests or whatever x-rays

he was supposed to get. He saved $30 million by doing that.

If everyone in the Province could do that, had the same power

that the minister had, they wouldn't mind what cuts you made to the health care

system either. If all the people in this Province could phone up an

administrator of a hospital or an administrator of a senior citizens home to get

their parent in, or phone up some cancer specialist when they need some

treatment. Even though in this House of Assembly a letter was read out by some

doctors in this Province that the cancer clinics around the Province are in

trouble or in jeopardy of closing. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you were the former

Minister of Health - I know for a fact this minister wouldn't do it - I just

know from him being himself that he would not do that. If he has to go for a

visit for medical reasons he'll line up the same as I did and the same as anyone

else did.

I was there a little while ago. I was in for - supposed to

get that whatever you call that light put down your stomach, to see if it

was.... They were going to put it up first to see if there was anything up

there. They found it was empty up there. It was empty when it went up by

mistake. They were going to put it down inside me. Anyway, I went and made an

appointment - unlike the former Minister of Health. It was at St. Clare's

Hospital too. I do know the administrator there from a long way back, and I

could have phoned, I suppose, if I'd wanted to. I went and my doctor's secretary

made the appointment to have this procedure done.

So I requested an early appointment for 8:45 a.m., I guess,

was the earliest one I could get. So I went to St. Clare's Hospital. This is

about four months ago, now. I went into St. Clare's Hospital to have this

procedure done and signed up for whatever time - 8:45 a.m. when I got there -

and I waited and waited. Now I expect if you make an appointment to do

something, if there is an appointment - I didn't care. I wanted an early

appointment. But if the appointment had been made for 12:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m.

that was the time I was going to show up. That was the time you would expect -

within reason - that you'd get whatever treatment. Unless there was an

emergency.

Now when I got there - I was there till 10:45 a.m. The

procedure was done for an upset stomach obviously, to see what was wrong with

it. An ulcer most likely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Listen to the devastation that this

government is doing to our Province, Mr. Speaker, it's giving me ulcers just

looking across the floor and seeing the arrogance, and watching ministers

setting up appointment and skipping the line when nobody else can. It's giving

me an ulcer because I'm worried about it.

Anyway, I made the appointment for 8:45 a.m. and I went and I

waited and waited. I spoke to some of the other, probably twenty-five people who

were there, by - the appointment was for 8:45 a.m. By 9:30 a.m. there were about

twenty people, and by 10:00 a.m., Mr. Speaker, another four or five there,

because there were fifteen minute appointments; by 10:30 there were another

three or four, from as far away as Grand Falls, a couple of them. There were

people there at 11:30 a.m. - when I couldn't stay any longer, and left because I

had other things to do - who had appointments at 7:30, 7:45, 8:00, 8:15, 8:30,

and 8:45 a.m., when I was supposed to get mine.

Now, there were people going in and out there. Obviously,

they were sicker than the rest of us. I don't know why they were being taken

ahead of those who had been waiting there. They must have been emergencies, I

suppose; that was all I could assume. There were half-a-dozen people who went

through while I was waiting there for about two hours. The problem that I went

in there to have checked out, the procedure, which the minister says might have

been of the 60 per cent of procedures that were not necessary, I don't know -

the doctor told me I should do this. If he had given me medication to stop the

pain, that was all I wanted. I didn't care if it was cured. As long as I can put

up with it and do my work, that's all I want to do. But, Mr. Speaker, there were

people still in that waiting room when I left at 11:30 a.m., who had

appointments for 7:30 or 8:00 a.m.

Now, there is a problem with organization when something like

that happens. I suppose I could have gone through if I had wanted to, but that

was the problem that the former minister missed when he skipped the line. That

is the problem he ignored completely when he cut $30 million from our health

care system. It affects the people who have to wait in lineups, it doesn't

affect the people who can phone up administrators and jump the line whenever

they want to.

Now, I don't know if he wants to get into Grade X or XI to

finish off his education - I don't know how much education he has. He's going to

skip the line again and go back to high school when he gets kicked out of here

next time, maybe, when he is no longer Minister of Education. There isn't much

damage he can do by skipping lines in the Department of Education. The damage he

is going to do now in the Department of Education is to create every possible

obstacle he can to prevent our young people from getting an education.

From obstructing health care and completely devastating the

health care system of this Province, now he has gone to the education system.

Two of the most important services a government can provide - I suppose,

providing reasonable transportation for everyone is an important service, too -

but two of the services that people really need: you need good care when you're

sick, and not everyone gets sick all the time, thankfully, but you always need a

good education. And every day that passes, you need a better education, not only

young people, but middle-aged people and people who have to change careers,

people who are going to get flung out of their jobs next week when the

government brings down its minibudget. They need training, they need education,

they need help to change careers. This is happening not only in Newfoundland,

people are changing careers all over the world. I realise that.

But how can we do it without a basic education in this

Province? - when students go for student loans and find that everyone there who

could help them were laid off or got their layoff notices last week? - when they

go for student loans and find that the Province is gypping them - every time

they go for their loan portion, which is the federal responsibility, federal

guarantee, they are being gypped on the grant portion by the Province, by the

provincial Minister of Education?

How do you get an education in this Province when both your

parents can't find a job and you can't find a summer job to save up some money,

if you can't get in there somehow on student loans? It was by way of student

loans, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of Newfoundlanders got through. I got through the

College of Trades and Technology, on student loans. I went for three years. It

was only supposed to be a two-year course, it took me three years. I'm slower

than most.

But I did go through there on student loans. It took effort,

and it took effort to pay it back when I got out. But I was grateful for the

opportunity to be able to go there, and to be able to access this money. It

wasn't a large amount of money but I was grateful to be able to access it fairly

easily at the time compared to now, and finance my own way. The reason it took

me three years - I was in technical college one year, which was all paid for by

my parents. They said I was going to this place, but I hadn't made up my mind

where I was going. I went in there for four or five months and I did very

poorly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Because I didn't try, I didn't work hard.

It was my fault - I had it handed to me on a silver platter. When I went back

the second time and had to finance my own way, knowing who was going to be

paying the bills - it was very selfish of me the first time not to realize this,

I know, but it happens to people. But Mr. Speaker, when you realize you are

paying your own way, well, then you work. I worked at least a bit harder and I

successfully got through it.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening here - maybe these regional

health care boards will benefit the health care system, hopefully they will. We

need something to improve it. The last minister having finished with our system,

we need improvements. We need more money, too. Money is hard to come by in every

department, but we need more money.

I hope that these new health care boards - if the minister

will tell us of what benefit they are going to be. Will they create just another

level of administration, another level of bureaucracy? Now, if that is what they

are going to create, well, Mr. Speaker, you won't get my support for that.

That would be only another expense, doing nothing for the

person who needs health care. If that is another bunch of board members put in

by Cabinet, a bunch of - as it should be, fairly competent, really competent

people on them, no doubt. We don't know, when Cabinet makes its recommendations,

who is going to be on the board, but there is a way to solve that. If the boards

are to be good - and hopefully, they will be good - there is a way to get people

on them who will represent the regions they are supposed to represent, local

people who will know the needs of the region and can work on behalf of that

regional health board to improve the health care system.

Now, there is a way to do that, and I thought it was a very,

very good suggestion that came from the Member for Menihek. I think it was

yesterday, in debate, that he suggested we should elect the members of this

regional service board. Now, we elect the municipal councils in our Province, we

elect our school boards, we elect the Members of the House of Assembly, the good

and the bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, that is probably not a great

recommendation but we do, that is the system we are in. But, when the minister

is speaking, would he suggest why these regional health boards could not be

elected? That would be an improvement, a step forward, allowing people on these

regional boards to come from the region, people with an interest in the health

care of that region. Certainly, if you are going to have regional health boards,

you need on them people from each region.

The health needs in Labrador, as I found in northern Labrador

when I was travelling that area, are much different from the health needs in St.

John's. There is a vast difference. They have reasonable health care up there,

but certainly not as good as it is here. But they have different needs in

Rigolet and Nain, Postville and all of those communities, from those we have

here in St. John's or Mount Pearl or Outer Cove or Torbay.

So that is why we should have people from the region, if we

have a regional board for Labrador or parts of Labrador, however it is going to

work. And we should have them elected, so that we can ensure that, not only this

Cabinet, but Cabinets in the future, won't be putting their buddies on this

board, just for a place to put them, and they will keep their mouths shut so

that when you cut another $30 million out of the health system, they won't kick

up too much fuss about it. That is what happens sometimes in our political

system. It is unfortunate, but it has happened before and would probably happen

again. However, one way to avoid that is to have these regional health board

members elected from the regions.

When I was on the other side of the House, and brought this

up, there was the rationale - the bureaucracy would say, well, the government is

paying the biggest cost and therefore should have some say and should make some

appointments. Well, if a completely elected board were a bit too radical a move

for the government now, let us start off with half-and-half, and make an

amendment to this bill to provide that over the next five to seven years, we

replace half of the appointed people with elected people and, in that way, phase

out the appointed people. That would be a way to start the process and you would

have elected at least half of the people on these boards.

Now, the bill that we have before us, Mr. Speaker, doesn't

say when this is going to happen, it doesn't say how many boards are going to be

put in place, it doesn't say anything about how they are going to operate, yet,

we are asked to approve this bill when we have very little information to go on.

If we had some commitment from the minister, when closing the debate, that there

would be elected at least half of the people who are going to serve on these

boards, I think that would be a good idea. It certainly deserves consideration.

It is not mine, it is the suggestion of the Member for Menihek, and I think it

is a very good one.

The election process works for the school boards. If

government thinks it would be expensive to do this, well, we could tie it in

with the municipal elections, like the school board elections are now. It gets a

bit complicated, but I think that is mostly how it is done in the county system

in other provinces when they are electing different regional boards. They elect

their school boards, health boards, and municipal-regional boards all in the one

election.

We, in this Province, could arrange these elections at no

great extra cost. There would be no extra voters lists or poll captains,

returning officers and so on, by including them in the municipal elections.

I would like to support the Member for Menihek in his

suggestion that we could have elected regional boards - if the boards are

necessary. Still the question hasn't been answered whether it is necessary to

establish these boards in the first place. The only reason the minister gave,

one-point entry or something like that, he mentioned - I can't find the quote

now - one-point entry into the whole health care system. If you go into St.

Clare's Hospital and eventually it is found that you need to be in Escasoni, for

example, well, you just go right on through the same system. I assume that is

what it means, but I don't know. I don't understand what the one-point entry

system means because the minister didn't explain it very much.

Mr. Speaker, if this is all it is going to do, I don't know

that we need to set up a bureaucracy to do that. We could pass regulations now,

with whatever boards we have in place, to do that. That would not be a massive

change in policy. It is not a problem that couldn't be solved with the people we

have in place now to manage our hospital systems. So, if this is going to be

just another level of bureaucracy, I will not support it. I can't support

another level of bureaucracy because this Province is probably - and as has been

said over there several times, this Province is over-governed, as it is, now. We

spend a lot of money on administration, and for every cent we spend on

administering any of our programs, it is obviously that much less money we have

to get down to the people in the system who need the money.

So I hope this minister can, through this change, if he can

explain it to me, try to start getting our health care system back in place and

overcome some of the damage done to our system by the former minister, now the

Minister of Education, who pats himself on the back quite often, suggesting that

he has saved $30 million every year by the cuts he made. The 650 jobs that he

took out of the system, the 450-odd hospital beds that he closed permanently in

this Province, that was where he saved his $30 million. But still, because of

the way he operated in his department, because he could phone up the

administrator of a hospital and have his and his family's health needs looked

after by a phone call, he has missed the damage that he has done to the health

care system in this Province.

I have experienced it. I had to take my wife to hospital for

mammograms and experienced first-hand, what happens - another organizational

problem with that, too, by the way. When we went there, there were lineups for

the mammograms. The previous two or three months waiting time is a problem.

Because people are under such stress while waiting, that, in itself, will make

them sick, whether they get a good report after it is over or not but when I

went with my wife for her test, after we waited the two-and-a-half months, I

expected to walk into St. Clare's Hospital again and find line ups coming out

the door. We went in there at quarter-to-nine in the morning, not a soul there,

walked right in, had the procedure done in fifteen minutes walked out and still

nobody there when we left. Now there is a problem with that, but what happened

after that was even a bigger problem because up to the point of getting the

procedure done, you had two-and-a-half months of waiting and a lot of stress and

a lot of worry while you were waiting, but after the procedure was done, the

next day or the day after, that doctor left the province. So you could not get a

report out of the hospital.

No wonder there was nobody lined up there because the person

should not have been doing them anyway. When the family doctor went looking for

the report he could not find it. Then I expected you would have to have another

three month wait to get it done. Well, Mr. Speaker, someone in the system, or in

the computer's or whatever they do, as luck happened came up with the report.

Even though that doctor had left the province the report was available.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the types of problems that are

existing, that are the day to day problems that people find when they are sick,

when they visit our health care system, are not going to be helped by this

regional health care board. I do not know how this regional health care board

can get down to the root of the problem, it could be an organizational problem,

I am not sure what it is. It is probably a lack of staff, it is probably a lack

of resources, it is probably that the people who are there now have too much to

do and they just can't handle it. The technicians who operate the machines, the

X-ray machines, and technical machines in our hospitals are overworked and they

cannot keep up with the demand. The machinery cannot keep up with the demand

right now. In St. Clare's, I know there are a couple of machines there to do - I

do not know what you would call it now. When you swallow that stuff and they

take pictures of the coloured stuff going down in your stomach. Anyway, two of

the machines there were broken for a full week.

AN HON. MEMBER: Barium.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes the barium, the barium yes, the chalk

I call it. The two machines that were there the day I went there, were broken

down. Finally someone worked on one for an hour or so, this was before, this was

another eight months before that but the machines were not working, Mr. Speaker,

and these are problems - line ups coming out of your ears. The last Minister of

Health did not notice it because he had his own system. He could walk past all

of those people. I could see him now going in there with his long raglan on and

a pair of sunglasses and his hat down over his ears so nobody would see him.

Walking past a hundred or so people, and going in and getting his exam done and

then scooting out the back door as fast as he could. It was like when he landed

with the helicopters down in St. Lawrence, he was like, I forget what the Member

for Grand Bank called him at the time, he dropped in the helicopter and kicked

up that much dust, ran into the hospital, closed it down and then took off

again. Nobody knew, Mr. Speaker, he was there or he was not there, Mr. Speaker,

that was all he did.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue this but I have

to leave now for a meeting with some members of the NTA which I believe all St.

John's members have been invited to. I hope we will all be getting at the School

for the Deaf which is in - I invite all of you to come to the District of

Kilbride, the School for the Deaf is in the District of Kilbride, and listen to

some of the concerns that the teachers of this Waterford Valley Branch of the

NTA will have to express at that time. I am sure that the Member for St. John's

South will be there. He never turned away, he never backed away from a fight in

his life. I am not sure about the cabinet ministers and if the member was not

invited I will make sure that that is brought up at the time when I get to the

meeting and it is to bad because I am sure you would be there. I hope the Member

for Waterford Kenmount is gone already. I hope other members from that side of

the House will be attending the meeting, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure it will

be a lively one. I know that the next Liberal, nominated Liberal candidate from

Kilbride will be at the meeting, Mr. Speaker, and he will earn his pay today,

Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear!

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

words on the amendment to the Department of Health Act. Mr. Speaker, there is

only one very very short amendment but there are so many implications and so

much involved in our health care system, especially today, Mr. Speaker, that I

hope when the minister rises in his place he can explain some of the

ramifications of that amendment. I see here a whole bunch of zeros, all tied in

with each other. The only explanation I can see, even in the general areas -

there are five areas, five boards to be established, one overlapping the other.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is a good idea. I know that the idea of a board system

has been ongoing for a number of years. The idea had been presented to

governments - I suppose, even before the time of this government - that regional

boards should be established to perhaps give the people of the Province a better

perspective as it pertains to health care, what they are eligible for and so on.

However, in the amendment it is not spelled out and I, for one, just wonder what

is going to happen within the framework of those regional boards.

On the surface the amendment seems simple enough but, when we

speak about five boards in all different areas of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, then we wonder whether it be done on a population basis or

geography. Certainly what it says on that paper, that one overlaps the other,

the Great Northern Peninsula perhaps will overlap into Labrador or whatever,

what is the reasoning for it?

If it is a better system, if it will deliver health care

services to the people in a better manner, then I don't think anyone is going to

object to that. Because I think health care is very, very important, and those

boards would certainly be representative of local people, hopefully, and they

perhaps would have a better knowledge of what is happening in that particular

region, compared to now with responsibility lying with the Department of Health.

I know for years, Mr. Speaker, my wife was involved with the

Department of Health, and they were responsible always to the regional director

who, in turn, was responsible to the Department of Health. In fact, they sort of

had their own department within a department. I know that for years the

suggestion was certainly out there, that this change be made and they be

answerable to some sort of a health board.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that I look at, and I am always

fearful of - not only with the government of the day or a government ten years

down the road, but I don't think that Cabinet should be allowed to control the

powers of the board.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: I will explain later to the hon. Member for

Placentia what I am talking about.

I think, then, you are looking for trouble. I think the

minister will, perhaps, readily agree as well, that our past performances and

our past experiences show that appointed boards are not the order of the day and

were never, Mr. Speaker. They were always abused -

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know that?

MR. PARSONS: Let me tell the hon. the Member for St.

John's South, I was a member of the Roman Catholic School Board for several

years by appointment of the Lieutenant-Governor. Then it changed and they were

elected in our area. I ran at the time and had no problem being elected. In

fact, I ran twice for the St. John's School Board and was elected on both

occasions. I found that you had a different perspective yourself when you were

elected rather than appointed. I also found that you weren't subjected to the

hierarchy. They were the people who appointed you, sort of, and now you were

elected by the people out there; and the people out there are the same as we are

in the House of Assembly. Those are the people we have a responsibility to, and

those are the people who sometimes dictate as to how we should act, and what we

should do on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, they will dictate to the boards even in terms of

their budgets and in terms of their staff. Again, I am not pointing any fingers.

What I am saying is that it could happen in any government, and we all know, as

politicians, that it sometimes happens that you have political persuasion,

political implications, and I do not think that is good for any health board or

within any health system.

You know, one place in the gospel it says: The Lord giveth

and the Lord taketh away. In the same instance, in this amendment, the Cabinet

can give it and the Cabinet can take it away - at its own whim. I think that is

a dangerous precedent, and I think it is certainly precedent setting.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I wonder at the fairness of it. I wonder

can we expect the same rationale as it pertains to services down on the northern

peninsula, Labrador, and other rural areas? I am not sure of where the five

areas are. I know St. John's is one; centre is another, and perhaps west is

another; eastern and Labrador. Can we look the people in the eye and say: Yes,

the same services are going to be available to each one of the boards? What

about the monetary side of it? Will the boards be funded on a per capita basis,

or will they get block funding because of the geographics of it? These are

things that I would like to know.

Again, I have no complaint with the boards if they are going

to be a plus for the people of the Province, and there is nothing wrong, really,

with the fundamental idea of boards and representation from the regions. I find

nothing wrong with that, but this Bill is to make community health a better way

to go to help the citizens of the Province, and I hope that when the minister

rises, he can explain to us what the conditions are, and set it out for us,

because again the amendment was very, very short, and really we do not know what

we speak of, because all we are saying is that we are going to have an amendment

to create those boards.

I wonder if it is possible for the minister to entertain the

idea that perhaps the directives, or the appointments, perhaps could come from

the Legislature? I know it is still coming from the government who would have

the greatest number, but at least it could be seen, or implied, that it was on a

fairer basis rather than by the Cabinet itself.

I have grave concern about the homes for the elderly. I know

that there are people telling me that there are people in the homes who perhaps

could be better situated in a homelike environment, and that might be true; but

there are a great number of people out there who cannot be facilitated in the

home, with service from the home. They need the services of these homes which

have almost the same services in respect to health care that hospitals have. I

think that we have to be very, very careful on how we choose.

Again, it might be the best idea that ever came about - to

have a lot of home care within a home situation - but again we have to be very,

very careful. These are elderly people. There are a great number of our

population now in those numbers. We have an aging population and I know that is

going to be the concern of government no matter which government is in, to

address the situation as it pertains to the needs of the elderly, especially the

needs of the elderly who have no one to look after them.

I was speaking to a doctor the other day and he brought to my

mind at least, some of the shocking things that are happening that a lot of us

don't ever see and hardly can realize is happening. He told me of an instance

where, an elderly lady was brought in to hospital and just left there. I said:

that is an isolated incident, and he said: no, it isn't. He said: on two

occasions, the previous week, two elderly ladies were brought in to the

hospital, one he said, really there was no reason for her to stay at the

hospital but he said she was left there with no one to take her and you know,

being human beings, Canadians and Newfoundlanders and whatever, there is no way

that you could take that lady and just throw her out of the hospital, it is

impossible, but those are situations.

But I think abandonment, I think that some way we have to try

to build up some sort of an establishment whereby those people can be

facilitated. I see down in Torbay, Mr. Speaker, and I know that everyone cannot

do this type of thing, but the Kinsmen in Torbay sponsored a home, the home is

made up - what do you call those homes with the apartments? It is a senior

citizens home and there are individual apartments in the homes. Now, granted you

in those units can look after themselves although elderly.

I was always an advocate of it, I always thought that this

must be the way. They pay their own way pretty well and the Kinsmen are the

responsible party but they live in dignity. Perhaps a day will come when they

will have to be hospitalized but I think in their frame of mind because they are

so happy in those units, that could prolong their stay, I really do. I think it

is in their subconscious: look, here we are with the best of living and they do

not want to be institutionalized, so in that sense, I say to the minister too,

that among us all here as legislators, perhaps we could come up with some way to

forward that idea, that perhaps we could have those service clubs, people who

volunteer like the Kinsmen or the Kiwanas or whomever and be responsible for

those homes. Again, we are all growing older, there are many of us here with

fathers and mothers who are elderly, not me, mine have since passed on, but

there are men and women here who have parents now who are looking at them and

wondering what is going to happen to them in the years to come, and I think that

is a thought that everyone has in his mind one day or the other, and I say not

only to this government but to my colleagues, there must be something out there,

we spend money in different ways but there must be something out there to

address the problem of the elderly.

It is not going to go away, it is increasing daily and being

in a small community, I can perhaps see it more readily than people in larger

centres, and again, we were involved in public health - I was not but my wife

was, and we say it readily because many were the times when I had to drive her

during the winter days and whatever because she had a big district and we could

see the needs then of the people.

There are lineups and as the minister knows there are great

numbers on the list for entrance into those homes which is done usually on a

'need' basis, sometimes taking into consideration that they have no one to look

after them, or their health needs are such that they cannot be addressed by home

care or whatever and I think that is the way it should go. But, why I brought it

up, Mr. Speaker, is that, I am afraid that perhaps if you look at it in the

political sense or if those boards were appointed by politicians, by me or

members on the other side or my own colleagues, I think perhaps there could be

some pressure exerted even to the admitting aspect of those homes, could be

interfered with politically and I think that would be bad. I do not think it

would be a fair system.

There is a lot to be said about elected representatives. We

deal here every day in the House with responsible people - responsible to the

people who elect them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too many of us.

MR. PARSONS: Too many, Mr. Speaker, but at any rate those

people are elected. They are elected. They can stand on their own two feet and

say: I was not put in there because I was so-and-so, or something like this.

They were elected by the people to represent them - to act on their behalf.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. Member for

Port de Grave that I am sure he agrees with me in saying that the members of

those boards - those regional hospital boards - perhaps would be better served

if they were elected.

I heard a good suggestion from a member here today, saying

that part of them - perhaps half of them - could be elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on the MHA's.

MR. PARSONS: Absolutely. That is absolute. There is no

doubt at all about it. There is no doubt at all about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you willing to give up three of your

pensions?

MR. PARSONS: I am not even going to address the hon.

Member for Port de Grave. He thinks that pensions come like licences. He has a

driver's licence. He has a seal licence. He has a fisherman's licence. That is

not the way pensions are. Pensions are different altogether. Now get away from

that altogether.

I know that the hon. Member for Port de Grave supports me in

my saying, and suggesting to the House, that at least part of those boards be

elected. I do not think that is asking too much, and I think that government

would be then responding to the needs and to the wills of the people.

I was also going to say to the minister, and I said to his

predecessor in private at one time, I know that the Alcohol and Drug Dependency

Commission - the commission itself was disbanded and then went within or beneath

the umbrella of the Department of Health. I did speak to the minister in private

about it, because I had a couple of people who received help from that

dependency board, or dependency commission, and the minister assured me that all

that was being taken away was some of the administrative staff.

I want to ask the minister, when he rises in his place, would

he address the Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission? How has it transpired? Is

it as good as what it was when it was on its own? I am sure now that this will

be under the umbrella of this board - the Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission

will be one such establishment.

The only thing that I have to again question the minister

about, when we talk about governors, governments, even in homes, even on boards

- can we overgovern? We have governments - from the time we get up in the

morning we are governed by someone. If the children go to the university they

are governed by the laws of the university. If they go along the roads and drive

their cars they are governed by the laws of the roads. If they have to build a

house they are governed by the community council or the town council of which

they are a part. No matter what it is, they are governed by something, and here

are we, legislators, and we legislate, again in a governing way, over the

everyday citizens who look up to us to make the rules and regulations.

I say to the minister that we want to be careful too that we

do not overgovern; that we do not place too many people on those boards, because

from my perspective, and the experience that I have over the years, every time

that I saw a board being instituted, or a department being made up, it

escalated. It snowballed. It ended up by three people starting it off, and the

next thing that person, if he had any great initiative at all, had an empire

growing. He was then on the higher echelon, overseeing a great domain, which was

never meant to be in the first place. But those things happen in everyday life

and it is a sin.

Then we talk about health care in general. Well, there is a

lot needed in health care in general. I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is costly and

it has to be paid for, and I know there are only so many dollars. But again, Mr.

Speaker, we are going to have to be careful where we cut, especially with the

young and the elderly. The rest of us can look after ourselves, but for the

elderly and the young we have to be careful.

Mr. Speaker, I had to go in for an X ray myself about a month

ago. I went in to the Health Sciences and there was such a lineup there that I

went over to the girl and said: How long will I have to wait now for my time to

come up? She said: Three hours. So, Mr. Speaker, I went back to the office where

I had a bit of work to do, and after the three hours I went back to the Health

Sciences again. You know, it was very simple, I went on in and had the X ray

taken. What I looked at then, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister, was

that there were a great number of people in the Health Sciences that day who

were from out of town, people who were dropped off by a taxi, and they had no

way of getting out of the hospital - elderly people again. Mr. Speaker, they had

to wait perhaps longer than I, four hours -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I just explained to the Member

for St. John's South that I didn't mind. I came back to the office and did a bit

of work while I was waiting my three hours. But the people who come in from out

of town, from outlying area, there is no way they could leave. They had no

transportation, dropped off by bus. All I am saying to the minister is, you

know, there are cuts coming, but I hope to goodness that they won't impoverish

or make it any worse for that type of person.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to touch on the MRI machine that

came in. We know we heard so much about this piece of equipment and the

technology that it had and the people that it would serve, that for months and

months and months on end everywhere you looked you would see someone looking for

a donation, and rightly so. All Newfoundlanders - and they are known for it -

gave from their hearts. This MRI machine was brought in here and there was no

room for it in the building and, if there was room in the building, the

foundation of the building couldn't accept the weight. Now, I think there was

some sort of an explanation for it, but I am not sure what the explanation was.

The previous Minister of Health perhaps had an explanation for it, but I am not

sure if the new minister does or not. The MRI machine is still here and they are

now pouring the footings for an extension to the building.

I look at it and say: My goodness, you mean to tell me that

this machine came in here and we didn't have advanced notice, or the government

didn't have advanced notice, that the machine was coming, didn't have any

measurements or weight indications as to how heavy the machine was, the size of

the machine or whatever? Here is a machine that people rushed to donate to, to

help the citizens of the Province, still lying in there not doing an iota for

the people.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a scandalous state of affairs. If

that machine, in operation, would only serve three people, if it only saved the

lives of a couple of people, then that machine is worthy of the cost and worthy

of all the problems that the people had in getting that MRI machine where it is

today. I say to the minister that he has to address it. The minister will have

to say to the people, he will have to tell this hon. House, what time he

believes this MRI machine can be put into operation.

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I remind the hon. Member for St. John's

South that the people from this area, in particular, and Newfoundland in

general, when you go around asking for money they are the best there is. Yours

truly had the opportunity on two occasions, under very, very drastic conditions,

very, very sad situations, to head two drives to help some poor people who were

left homeless with a great number of deaths involved. At one place in time I was

on an open line show, asking for help for the people, and the next Monday I had

to go back to the open line show and tell the people to stop it, that we had

money enough. So that will tell you how good the people are in the area, and how

well they serve their fellow man, and they should be congratulated on it. Again,

with this MRI machine, they certainly contributed and that machine, as far as I

am concerned, should not be left over there now, not doing what it was supposed

to do. I think it is disgraceful, and I believe that it was poor management on

someone's part.

I heard it said that the machine itself was not what

originally had been ordered - I do not know - and that when the machine did come

in, it was much larger and of a much greater weight. Mr. Speaker, I find that

hard to believe. I find it hard that the government, who is responsible for

health services, and the Health Sciences Complex, would not have some sort of a

spec as to what they were expected to receive when the MRI machine arrived. It

is still over there, in the area, and they are only now putting down the

footings. How much more time is going to elapse before that building is actually

in place, and this machine will then be ready to service the people? I believe

the people are awfully quiet because, after donating from the bottoms of their

hearts, now we find that the machine is not in use.

Those are some points that I want to make to the minister. I

repeat myself, and I know it. I also want to say to the minister, for the second

time, that I hope that his government, the government of which he is part, and

the Minister responsible for Health, that they give some thought to those senior

citizens homes. The ones I am talking about are the individuals units,

apartments, and again I say to the minister that perhaps it might be the way to

go.

Our fathers and our mothers and ourselves, in fact, I am

getting up there now and I suppose I have to look forward to the day perhaps

when - you are not going to live forever - but I see those units as ideal

situations for the elderly. I hope that government will decide to place great

emphasis on, and bring to fruition some of those units in different parts of the

country.

There is one in Torbay. They are asking for an extension now,

by the way, asking for the funding from CMHC and knowing that they will get it,

because they are a responsible group. If you have a group like the Kiwanis, or

the Kinsmen, or the Knights of Columbus, or the Masonic, or those people who

will be responsible for the administration of those homes, then you do not

really have a problem. All the government has to do is bring it about. All the

government has to do is to initiate the plans, bring about the plans, for those

apartments.

I say to the minister, if you want to see one that is really

working, go down on Brown's Lane in Torbay. There is a beautiful complex down

there. I was up there only a couple of weeks ago to a birthday for a ninety year

old gentleman, and I must say, it was really nice to look at. There was so much

respect for each other there. There was a lot of camaraderie there, and again I

say to the minister, it might be a psychological adventure, as far as government

is concerned, to thing about it and say to themselves: Look, if we put those

people in these homes, the willingness to go to an institution will certainly be

deferred for a great number of months.

I ask the minister to address some of those suggestions when

he goes to close the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few short comments pertaining to Bill

38. The bill is very brief, but then again I think it is - I do not know if it

is intentional or not, but to me it is sort of vague and there is not much - one

of the statements in

Section 1, Subsection (2): The Lieutenant-Governor in

Council may by order establish regional community health boards, which shall be

considered to be corporations, to direct the delivery of health care services,

other than hospital services, in the Province.

That particular section, Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask

some questions and get some answers pertaining to why the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, if we are going to have boards around the Province - and that is

another thing, how many boards, there are no numbers here and I know it is

supposed to replace, I think there are four health care units if I am not

mistaken around the Province now, primarily four Department of Health units

around the Province so I suppose it would replace those and then they would

become community health boards. What the numbers would be, where they would be

established and I suppose another question I would have to ask the minister is,

what will they be responsible for, what powers will they have?

They will be appointed I suppose by the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council but as far as I am concerned, one of the reasons and one of the

concerns I have in this particular

section of the Bill, is that I have seen it

happen with two or three or three or four other bills that came to the floor in

the past couple of years, and the one that comes to mind primarily, is the Crown

Lands Act. In that particular act, it took out

section 7 subsection (2) in that

act and gave all the power to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. This is

another bill, Mr. Speaker, that gives powers primarily to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Now, I suppose the minister when he does get up

can explain; maybe there are all kinds of good reasons, maybe there are all

kinds of good intentions and I suppose I should reserve my judgement until the

minister answers some of the questions pertaining to the concerns that I have

and other members on this side of the House.

One of the concerns that I have is the areas that would

encompass those boards; what areas and how large an area they will be

responsible for and how will they be able to manage it, how will they be able to

do justification to it, because the one that comes to my mind, overall, is the

so-called assessment and placement under a so-called continuing care for seniors

and so on. That worries me because I know in my particular area, we have I

think, four different types of homes: one, Humber Valley Home is run by the -

really it comes under the jurisdiction or it came under the jurisdiction of

CMHC, whereby people in that particular home pay huge amounts of rent and in

fact, only for the intervention the last number of years, a lot of those people

would have had to leave and I suppose social services would have had to look

after them because any senior citizens homes in the province that are subsidized

by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation or by the Department of Health,

they only pay up to a maximum of 25 per cent of their income in that particular

home. In this particular home, the Humber Valley Homes financed and looked after

by CMHC, they had to pay the regular going rate, whatever that rate was and they

could not put groceries on the table. That is, I suppose a stark contrast to

NLHC which would be a maximum of 25 per cent, putting seniors in a very, very

uncomfortable situation.

Then we move along to a personal care home. Personal care

homes: we have that in the Deer Lake area too under the Deer Lake Manor whereby

they are subsidized, especially the one that comes under the twenty units,

twenty or less, they are subsidized by I suppose the Department of Health and

the Department of Social Services and so on to take in those particular seniors.

They have it half-decent, there is no question about that. They pass back $90 or

$110 out of their cheque when they get it at the end of the month and they have

something for a bit of pocket money. Then we move on to the Interfaith in Corner

Brook which is a subsidized unit and that is controlled by a local board and a

local board of directors I would say, that comes under the Interfaith Home in

Corner Brook.

But they make the decisions on who goes into that home from

all over the west coast, northern peninsula, or anywhere else. I've questioned

that in the past and I question it today. On the validity of some of the

applications that come before the board for the Inter Faith Home in Corner

Brook.

I've known we have a very serious problem in this Province

today, and it's going to get worse - our problems pertaining to seniors. People

are living longer, times are getting tougher, income is being eroded.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I think they can get tougher. I really

do think they can get tougher. Especially for seniors and people who are

disabled. Primarily because they're on fixed incomes. If the money is not there

for a provincial government to control its deficit and to do the very basic

things; if the money is not there for the federal government to do the basic

necessities required of them to sustain seniors and other people who are less

fortunate than some others in society; than I suppose it's going to get worse.

Especially for those particular classes of people. They've got no one to turn

to. They've got no other income. I would say to the minister that under this

particular

section of the Act the reason - I asked the minister a very important

question. Why aren't there other clauses in the Act that state specifically what

those particular boards would be responsible for?

Usually in

an act it states what everything's responsible

for. (Inaudible) different parts of the act, whether it's one, two, three, four,

five or what. Then it's got subsections. In this particular Act it's very vague

and it looks to me like it's intentional. If it's intentional, my big question

would be: what is it for? There shouldn't be anything to hide. There should be

absolutely nothing to hide when you're looking after health care in the

Province. If it does come under the so-called circle design that the previous

minister put last year in the estimate committees there's nothing there to hide,

absolutely nothing. There's no argument with it - the health promotion, health

protection, mental health, continuing care, alcohol and drug dependency.

So the circle - unless now there could be another reason. I

think at that time that minister was going clockwise. Now I don't know if this

minister has it in his mind to go counterclockwise. That could be the reason why

there's nothing else in this particular Act. I don't know. I'm a little bit

leery about that particular -you can't change the circles unless you make

squares out of them, and then he's in real trouble.

Another thing I'd like to ask the minister. Under the alcohol

and drug dependency act - which I suppose would be incorporated all under this

Act, I would say - now if the minister when he does get up tell me that those

five particular headings are all going to come under that Act, the question is:

why isn't it in the Act? Why aren't t