May 28,

1991 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 58

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, this week has been designated

as National Access Awareness Week. The Government is sensitive to the many

barriers still facing persons with disabilities today. We are also aware that

more must be done by all sectors of society if progress is to be made.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform hon. Members

of the Government's initiative to facilitate the integration of people with

disabilities into the Provincial public service. Our efforts in this area have

come about as a result of recommendations from the Task Force Report on

Employment Equity. One of the recommendations stated that Government adopt an

employment equity program this would increase the opportunities for persons with

disabilities in obtaining employment in the Provincial public service.

The recommendation was accepted through the creation of the

Public Service Career Development Program for Persons with Disabilities, we have

designed and implemented the "Opening doors" program. The program is

specifically aimed at increasing the number of permanent positions for persons

with varying degrees of disabilities in the Provincial public service. Phase one

of the Opening Doors Program recently concluded, following successful completion

of this one year work assessment, fourteen persons with disabilities were placed

in permanent positions. The second phase is now under way and we are currently

recruiting to fill fifteen more work assignments in the various departments of

Government throughout the Province.

In addition, this program includes a joint effort with

Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services to develop a computer applicant

inventory. The inventory includes an employment profile of persons with

disabilities who are not only interested in the public service but who may also

be interested in employment in the private sector. Private and corporate sector

organizations will be contacted and encouraged to utilize this resource in

recruiting new employees.

The Opening Doors Program is a program we can all be proud

of. There has been a great deal of co-operation in order for this program to

exist. I would like to commend and thank the Public Service Commission for their

hard work and to the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees for their

cooperation for ensuring the success of this project.

Mr. Speaker, the theme for this year's National Access

Awareness Week is "Access is a right". Access comes in different forms. We as a

government feel that the "Opening Doors" program is a positive step for disabled

persons in terms of better access to employment in the Provincial public

service. We will continue to examine programs like this and encourage other

organizations to do the same.

As the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission

I am pleased to declare provincial support for National Access Awareness Week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the

Minister was not a bit more enthusiastic with this statement. It is a fairly

positive bit of information, and something that the Government should be

commended for, and I do so. It is an excellent initiative. The Minister did not

sound too enthusiastic about it, perhaps he has a cold today. He does have a

cold, okay.

I do want to make the point, of course, something that the

Minister skipped over and did not, of course, give any credit to the previous

administration for, because it was the effort of the previous administration

that brought all this about, because of the Task Force Report on Employment

Equity that he briefly referred to on Page 1. He would know, of course, that

task force was initiated by the previous administration and a lot of the work,

and indeed the recommendations for a lot of the initiatives came from that

report. So in that respect, both he and I, and both the Government and the

previous Government stand, for once at least, hand in hand in trying to do

everything they can to improve opportunities for people with disabilities.

I mentioned yesterday, and I will repeat it again since I

have the opportunity, that a number of us from the Legislature, I think there

were nine from both sides, sat with people with disabilities yesterday at a

unique luncheon activity. It was during that activity that those of us who were

there, certainly, experienced a great learning experience, and learned a lot

about people with disabilities, even in that short period of time, about an hour

and a half. It is, I suppose, a bit unfortunate that more Members were not

there, but this was their first effort, and hopefully the next time they have

one I would encourage and urge all Members to attend because it is a worthwhile

experience.

Mr. Speaker, this is a small step forward and I commend the

Government on behalf of this Party, at least, for undertaking this initiative,

and hope that we will hear statements from the Minister, not only during

National Access Awareness Week, of initiatives that Government will undertake,

but they should be coming in here week, after week, after week, with similar

kinds of initiatives. We look forward to hearing him do just that, along with

his colleagues in the Cabinet.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as usual there has been considerable interest

about the level of employment at the Wooddale Tree Nursery this year. I would

like to advise this hon. House about the status of production levels and

projected employment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute or two to first

put the historical levels of employment at the nursery in perspective. The

nursery started in the early seventies with heavy emphasis on the production of

labour intensive bareroot seedlings. However, with the evolving trend towards

container stock, ten greenhouses were built in 1980, ten in 1983 and the final

ten in 1985. The Department's current strategy is to produce the maximum number

of greenhouse grown container stock and meet the rest of the demand from

bareroot seedlings. The production of bareroot seedlings has varied from 120,000

in 1970 to a maximum of 5.9 million in 1987, at which time employment reached

its maximum of 175 people. Total seedling production that year was 10.8 million.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that 175 people is in comparison with the 220 to

250 the hon. Member for Grand Falls was referring to in the debate yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, this year we are planning to produce

approximately 8.8 million trees. Since 6.3 million of these will be container

stock, the production of bareroot seedlings will have to be curtailed to some

extent. As a result, 110 employees have been recalled for summer work. At least

99 of them will receive a minimum of 10 weeks of employment. Some of the workers

will be receiving over 30 weeks of employment. My department will be reviewing

the possibility of additional planting projects which may enable us to provide

more employment to the remaining workers as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have met with the representatives of the

workers at the nursery and the manager of the nursery. I have gone over the

department's plans with the manager and I am satisfied that all efforts are

being made to run the nursery as an efficient and viable enterprise. At the same

time full consideration is being given to using the labour intensive techniques

to keep employment at a reasonable level. Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I would like to

make on the Minister's statement. It is rather interesting that it was only

yesterday in debate that I pleaded with the Minister to come forward with a

statement today to clarify the situation with respect to employment at the

Wooddale Nursery because there are in excess of 100 employees out there who are

suffering a considerable amount of anxiety. They did not know what was going on

because of news reports suggesting the Minister was saying that there would be a

down sizing in the work force. I pleaded with him yesterday to bring a statement

into the House today and if he did that, and if it was a relatively positive

statement, that I was quite prepared to stand and sing his praises and commend

him. So I am not quite sure if I will do that at the beginning or at the end of

my comments. Perhaps I might as well do it now and get it out of the way. I

commend the Minister for finally coming into the House and explaining to the

workers at Wooddale exactly what is ahead for them in terms of employment.

Now I have to point out, of course, that I had a conversation

with members of the union a week or a week and a half ago and they indicated to

me that they would like me to come out and sit down with all the workers at

Wooddale because of their concerns and discuss their concerns. I agreed to do so

immediately. They told me a short while later, two or three days later, that

they were attempting to get a meeting with the Minister, but the Minister was

not prepared to meet with all of the workers, but he would meet with a select

group, the executive of the Association. And they told him in no uncertain terms

that if he did not do something for the workers at Wooddale they were going to

get me into a meeting and really cause a fuss. So it seems that their threats to

the Minister have worked, and the Minister has responded positively. So I

commend him for that.

He made the point of course, he could not get through it

without making a little dig: in 1987 the maximum employment, the peak employment

at the Wooddale Nursery was 175 employees, not the 200 or the 220 that the

Member for Grand Falls referred to yesterday. And I said to him: 200, 220, 250,

whatever the number was. The Minister would never tell us what the number was.

But I hasten to add that of course in 1987 when that facility reached its peak

employment of 175 employees, it was that same Member for Grand Falls who

happened to be the Minister of Forestry. So too bad this Minister is not

performing in the same way.

Now there is some concern with respect to the use of the

bareroots stock and the Minister is well aware of it. Most Members of the House

perhaps would not be too familiar with it. My colleague the Forestry critic is

quite familiar and others who certainly serve constituencies that depend on the

forest industry for their livelihood. And there is some debate about whether the

container stock or the bareroot stock is the best. As a matter of fact I do not

think there is a lot of argument in terms of which is better. I think the

quality of the tree that comes from the seedling is probably as good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: I will just finish off by saying that there is

a bit of debate about that and there is reason for concern. I know the Minister

is concerned even though his colleagues in the backbenches may not be. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions, on

behalf of hon. Members I would like to extend a warm and cordial welcome to two

or three student groups here this afternoon. And first we would like to extend a

warm welcome to forty-five Grade VI students from Vanier Elementary School here

in St. John's, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. David Wilding, and four

parents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we would like to welcome forty Grade V

students from St. Peter's School, Upper Island Cove, accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Winston Lynch and Mr. Norman Mugford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have, also, twenty participants from The

Women Interested In Successful Employment Programme, WISE, here in St. John's,

accompanied by their instructors, Helen King and Sylvia Ash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

President of Treasury Board.

Last Thursday, I asked the Minister about a proposal

presented to Treasury Board by the Allied Health Professionals. That proposal,

as I understand it, was for a joint study into recruiting, retraining and other

non-wage issues, and my understanding, further, was that, if Government agreed

to this proposal, this joint study which, by the way, in itself, was

non-binding, then the Association tells me that an agreement could have been

reached, and still can be reached in the current negotiations, which have gone

on for nearly eighteen months.

Now on Thursday, the Minister, in response to my question

said: `If the position is that simple, and I honestly hope it is, then

obviously, we are ready to sign a contract at any time.' Can the Minister tell

the House, why Treasury Board is not prepared to accept what appears to be still

a simple and reasonable proposal, a non-binding joint study committee? Why is he

not prepared to accept that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it may not be as

simple as all that. Treasury Board Classification and Pay people, are prepared

to do the part of the study that has to do with looking at the classifications

involved in the AHP group.

The other input that AHP wants in terms of the other things

mentioned by the hon. gentleman, is more properly done with the Hospital and

Nursing Homes Association and with the management of hospitals, in terms of how

the system operates and the recruitment happens, and so on.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm that

what he has offered, a classification and pay study, by Classification and Pay

in his own Department of Treasury Board, is something they can do, anyway? It

does not require an agreement by the union, in fact, the Government proposal, as

I understand it, is a proposal to have a classification review done by Treasury

Board without representation from the Association and, also, with no right of

appeal. Is that true? Is that what the proposal is? Is it as accurate as that?

Can he confirm that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the review of classification we

propose will be done by the Classification and Pay people in Treasury Board. I

could not prejudge what that might do. I presume, in any classification, there

is a right of appeal, at some point in time, but it would not necessarily

directly involve the individuals whose classifications are being looked at,

except that input, obviously, would be sought from them, especially in terms of

duties, job descriptions and all this kind of thing. So, the input comes from

the people in the jobs, what they do, how they carry out their jobs, and so on.

The input comes in and the evaluation will be done by the Classification and Pay

people, in light of other units in the public service that have similar duties

and levels of responsibility.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be specific about

it, if I can. Is the Minister prepared, at least, to instruct his negotiators

that any such review by Classification and Pay would only be done jointly with

the Allied Health Professionals, and, secondly, that they would, in fact, have a

right of appeal? - that is, on that particular point. On the other point, which

he says should more properly be done by the Hospital and Nursing Homes

Association, are they not part of the bargaining process, as well? Are they not

usually at the table with Treasury Board and the bargaining unit involved? If

that is the case, which I assume it is, why would he not accept the proposal of

the Allied Health Professionals, which is simply to put what is left out to a

joint committee non-binding? It is not even binding on the Government. I cannot,

for the life of me, understand why he would not accept that.

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

MR. BAKER: The Opposition House Leader is correct in that

there are not two parties at the bargaining table, there are three parties

involved. The mere existence of the Hospital and Nursing Homes Association at

the bargaining table does not necessarily mean that everything done would

involve all three parties at the table. As I have stated to the hon. gentleman,

the analysis of classification is quite properly the job of Classification and

Pay Division of Treasury Board, and the recruitment and all the other matters

associated with the conditions of work on the job is quite properly within the

confines of the Hospital and Nursing Homes Association.

I am fairly carefully choosing my words, Mr. Speaker,

because,

whereas I do not mind talking to the hon. gentleman about it, and I do

not mind informing the House of our attitude, at the same time, I hesitate to

actually bargain in public in the House.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the same Minister, a minister with many

responsibilities and opportunities to make a difference for the better, the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, the President of Treasury Board

and now the Acting Minister of Social Services. Since the Minister and his

colleagues formed the Government two years ago, the number of single parent

families on social assistance has increased from 6,300 to 7,500; that is a

shocking rise of 20 per cent in just two years. These statistics indicate over

10,000 children, who are children of single parents, mostly single mothers,

living in poverty. The alarming growth in the case load reveals a failure of the

system to help the parents - as I said, mostly single mothers - get out of the

welfare trap.

I ask the Minister, What does the Government propose to do to

improve the outlook of these single mothers and their dependent children?

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

MR. BAKER: As the Member well knows, we recently made

provisions in this Budget for considering the first child as, in fact, an adult,

which would increase the allocation to single parents. The whole issue of single

parents in our society is a very complex one and I understand the seriousness of

the problem; we have, for some time. We are looking at the problem. There are

some things that have been done over the last year or so to improve the lot of

the single parent. There is one incident the Member keeps referring to that was

a negative, but it was done for other reasons.

The hon. Member will know that we are currently having a look

at a specific case of single parents who are attending University, to see what

special allowances we can make for them. We have done several things in terms of

social services, like increasing the fuel allowance, and so on, this year. We

have made some moves, this year, in spite of the fact that we are in very

difficult financial times, that will obviously assist single parents, as well as

all social services recipients in the Province. So, I assure the hon. Member

that we recognize the seriousness of the situation and we will deal with it as

best we can.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Government have made one or two steps forward,

disappointingly, they have made several steps backward, and single mothers have

actually lost ground over the last year or two.

I would like to zero in on an issue the Minister, himself,

mentioned, which has to do with the social assistance policy regarding treatment

of student aid. Many single mothers who are on welfare desperately want to

become self-sufficient, and their route to independence is higher education.

However, the current social assistance policy discourages single mothers on

social assistance from going to school. The policy actually provides an

incentive to quit school, stay home, and simply receive welfare cheques. The

most glaring disincentive is the treatment of student aid as non-allowable

income. Even student loans that have to be repaid in full are subtracted

dollar-for-dollar from the social assistance entitlement. And I believe this

Minister appreciates the problem and understands the disincentive.

My question is: When is the Government going to conclude the

committee proceedings, finish the study - the issue is clear - make a decision,

and make it in time for single mothers on welfare who want to go to school this

September?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! A good question.

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

MR. BAKER: I congratulate the Member for Humber East on

her conversion. The road to Damascus is nothing compared to the conversion that

we have seen in this House in the last year or so. The hon. Member was sitting

in Cabinet for how many years? - and did not solve all the problems of the

single parents in this Province, and now she assumes that, in a few months, we

could do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) years, not a few months.

MR. BAKER: Well, it is not seventeen years, I remind the

hon. Member. We recognize that, under no conditions, is the income for social

assistance recipients what we would like to see it. If we were a rich province,

there are many things we could do. We recognize that a single parent with one

child, for instance, when rent is included, receives the equivalent of about

$898 a month, in terms of assistance. When that single parent goes to

university, he or she receives, after tuition and books are taken into account,

the equivalent of a little over $1,300 a month, that is, student loan, grant,

plus assistance from Social Services. We recognize it is difficult, in terms of

raising a family, to survive properly on what is available. We recognize that,

and we are currently studying it. I cannot guarantee when that study will be

complete, but it should not take a lot of time.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Minister that we, over here, are progressive in

our approach. The Government, of which he is a member, last October 1, made a

terribly regressive change in social assistance policy by beginning to treat

maintenance and child support as non-allowable income. My question is, Will this

Minister, this acting Minister of Social Services, reverse that October 1 change

and, once again, treat maintenance and child support as allowable income, and

allow poor single parent families to benefit from the contributions of absent

parents, or absent spouses and restore the incentive for absent parents to

contribute to the support of their children?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, it is amazing! She has all the answers, now, and

her years in Government - at the end of seventeen years of Tory rule in this

Province, things are so disastrous as she claims. It is really amazing! I do not

know how she has the stomach to stand there and say some of the things she says,

I really do not.

Now, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not Minister of Social

Services, I am simply spending a couple of days being responsible for the

department until whatever happens is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Whoever is, will be announced, I suppose,

whenever the Premier is ready to do so. I am simply being the person who will

answer the questions in the House for a few days, weeks, or whatever it takes. I

am not the Minister of Social Services, however, I can assure the hon. member

that we are just as concerned as she is about the plight of single parents in

this Province. We, at the end of our seventeen years, will not leave this

Province in the same state that she and her colleagues left the Province in. We

will leave this Province in a much better condition, and the people of this

Province in a much better condition than they left them.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final supplementary to the Premier, the same question: Will

the Premier reverse the October 1st social assistance policy change, and, once

again, treat maintenance and child support as allowable income, improving the

financial means of singe mothers and their children, and restore the incentive

for absent parents, or absent spouses, to contribute to the support of their

dependent children and relatives?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: As the hon. member noted, it was the same

question, and the Minister, who is the President of Treasury Board, spoke for

the Government in the matter and gave the answer.

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

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

Minister of Development. Has the Minister, or more appropriately, Government,

recently approved the $100,000 loan guarantee to Great Northern Seafoods by

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? I wonder if the Minister, in his answer,

as well, could indicate to the House if any other Government loan guarantees

made to another, or other companies have been transferred to Great Northern

Seafoods?

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

MR. FUREY: That is a good question, Mr. Speaker.

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador have a series of programmes they offer with

respect to private business. When it came to the Great Northern Peninsula

Development Corporation there was what was called a community enterprise program

that was added to the credit union and co-operative side program. That loan was

approved at the board. It was brought to my attention some time ago, and I

intervened as the Minister. I intervened as the Minister because I did not think

that was a proper use of Government funds for a third sector organization which

was added to this particular component of the program, and I will tell you why I

did that.

Development associations - currently there are fifty-seven

across the Province - have access to the Rural Development Agreement, a $30

million agreement that this particular Government signed back a number of months

after we took office. Other areas such as credit unions and co-operatives also

have access to that $30 million agreement. So I believe that there was already

in place a pool of capital that development associations and the Great Northern

Peninsula Development Corporation itself, which was an umbrella organization

whereby there were five development associations reporting up under it, already

had access to this pool of capital.

Secondly, along the northern peninsula we have two regional

offices. We have one at Flower's Cove, and we have one at Port Saunders. These

satellite offices have all the elements of all the programs of Enterprise

Newfoundland. They can deliver our equity, our loans, our small programs to

small business and other areas.

So what I said was how can we say to the Great Northern

Development Corporation here is $100,000 which you can pass out to small

businesses and at the same time have two offices operating along the great

northern peninsula at Flower's Cove and at Port Saunders doing the same thing.

It just did not jibe, it did not make sense, so I put a hold on that money until

I had the opportunity to deal with the president of the corporation and Dr.

House, responsible for the Economic Recovery Commission. In the belief that the

Great Northern Peninsula Development Corporation, as do all development

associations around the Province, have a pool of capital to draw on, $10 million

of the $30 million sits there under a community development program fund. They

can draw upon that, so they have a source of funds. I was not prepared to put

$100,000 into the Great Northern Peninsula Development Corporation to deliver

the same programs that Enterprise -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: It has been approved, but this Minister has

stepped in and frozen it until I have had time to speak to the president and to

the Chairman of the Recovery Commission, and I think that it is the proper thing

to do. It would have been easier for me as Minister right inside my own District

of St. Barbe to simply say yes, approve it and away we go. But that would have

been irresponsible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

was approved the Minister said, but in essence he has frozen it for a while. Can

the Minister confirm that the Government recently paid $1.5 million to the Bank

of Nova Scotia to pay off loans that had been built up by Great Northern

Seafoods which have been guaranteed in 1989 and 1990? And will he also confirm

that Great Northern Seafoods has an outstanding loan of about $400,000 from

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador on which no payments have been made to

date, and apparently interest has built to approximately $100,000? Can the

Minister confirm that?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, when this Government came to

office we inherited a great number of things. There have been a lot of loans

paid off, and paid off by this Government. One example was Twillingate. There

were many millions of dollars that were paid out approved by the previous

Government.

Let me just give him a very quick history of the Great

Northern Seafoods. The former Minister of Fisheries, the current Leader of the

Opposition, had a choice in the Brig Bay area, he had a choice. He could turn

the plant over to Great Northern Seafoods which had no capital, no money, Mr.

Speaker. There were two private sector companies at that time that were very

interested in moving in, Mr. Blackwood of Clarenville Ocean Products, and

Connor's Brothers, I believe at that time. But the then Minister of Fisheries

determined that the best option to go was to pass it over to this development

corporation that had no money.

So, Mr. Speaker, what happened was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has to more or less determine whether or not the

Minister is getting to the core - getting to the essence of the answer, and I do

believe that the Minister is taking too much time, and I will ask the Minister,

please to clue up his answer very quickly.

MR. FUREY: The short answer is, Mr. Speaker, yes, the

Government did pay out the loan guarantee. The hon. Member's numbers are

incorrect, it is $1 million not $1.5 million. Also, Mr. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FUREY: $1 million. Also, there was a loan to the

former NLDC for some $300,000 or $400,000 and the interest was waived for the

period of time, since the existence of Great Northern Seafoods, so he is correct

in that assumption as well. He is probably quoting from a letter that I sent to

the Great Northern Peninsula Development Corporation, pointing out all of the

monies that has gone into that corporation since it was allowed to stand on its

feet by the previous Government, and you know, Mr Speaker, I do not mean to

deprecate the decision by the former Minister, but I just want the hon. Member

for Grand Bank -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: - to understand that it was his colleague, the

Minister of Fisheries who allowed this corporation to take over the assets of

this company to allow it to stand on its feet and to give it an opportunity to

survive so the short answer is, Mr. Speaker: yes, we paid out the $1 million

dollars.

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

I would advise the Minister, please, to take the instructions

from the Chair to clue up his answer. The Minister is finished?

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker.

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

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

supplementary to the Minister, but before I go to a supplementary, let me say to

the Minister that he gave loans to this enterprise in 1990, we were not the

Government in 1990, he was.

Now, in light of the letter that the Minister has indicated

that he wrote to the director of Great Northern Peninsula Development

Association, expressing grave doubts about the viability of Great Northern

Seafoods, and some of the things in his letter refer to the failure of Great

Northern Seafoods to make payments on loans and so on which the Minister now has

confirmed.

Can the Minister explain why then a $100,000 loan was

approved to Great Northern Seafoods? That is what I cannot understand in light

of all those grave concerns expressed in your letter, why was the $100,000

approved?

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

Tourism.

MR. FUREY: The hon. Member is a little confused. There

were two approvals; the first approval of the $100,000 was for the Great

Northern Peninsula Development Corporation, it was that money that I believed

that the Corporation, through the Development Associations already had access to

a pool of capital from the Rural Development Agreement.

Secondly, Enterprise Newfoundland, through its west coast

office and its satellites, indeed up the northern Peninsula, the two satellites

I referred to delivered the programmes that, that very money was directed into,

so that is the $100,000 under the Great Northern Peninsula Development

Corporation.

The second thing the hon. Member points out, is Great

Northern Seafoods: was there a loan approved or pending approval for Great

Northern Seafoods? Yes, $100,000 was pending approval -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, that is not what I said, I said in the

Great Northern Peninsula Development Corporation; I would ask the hon. Member to

concentrate and get it right. There were two things, The Great Norther Peninsula

Development Corporation and The Great Northern Seafoods.

The $100,000 which was approved for Great Northern Seafoods,

was pending - pending; $100,000 each from Clearwater and Priess, two separate

companies. When they came to the table to help with the operating capital for

Brig Bay under Great Northern Seafoods and only, when they came to the table,

only when they came to the table would we allow the release of the $100,000. I

think that is being extraordinarily responsible by this Government and by

Enterprise Newfoundland.

What did I say or how did I admonish Great Northern

Development Corporation? I would ask the hon. Member to keep them separate:

Great Northern Development Corporation, Great Northern Seafoods. Why did I

lecture Great Northern Development Corporation? Because, in their original

mandate, they had set out, as the hon. former Minister of Fisheries knows, set

out to establish themselves -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), so long to answer it.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, their original motto, their

original terms of reference, their original raison d'etre, was, Mr. Speaker, to

set up small corporations to feed them with seed money to allow them to stand on

their feet, then to pull back.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this Corporation has been in existence

since 1987, it has had $300,000 of operating capital from the Federal

Government, governments in all areas, including the previous Government, have

supported them. I simply said in my letter: return to your fundamental

principles and your fundamental principles were to help small companies, get

them on their feet, and withdraw.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considering how much time is left in Question Period, I have

a couple of brief questions for the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health, in responding to some

questions as to why doctors have left this Province and why many doctors are

contemplating leaving this Province, tried to give the impression that doctors

are in the same financial situation all across this country, in Ontario he

mentioned and in British Columbia in particularly.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health to confirm that in

effect there is a vast difference between what has happened to doctor's salaries

in Ontario, where the capping has been in excess of $400,000 a billing,

whereas

in Newfoundland we have had an across the board capping of doctors salaries,

which is causing undue problems and causing doctors to leave this Province to go

to Ontario and British Columbia. Will the Minister confirm that our method of

capping all doctors salaries is not the same as the method now used in Ontario?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the principle is the same right

across the nation. The way that principle is carried out differs from province

to province. As the hon. Member pointed out quite rightly, in Ontario the

capping is in excess of $400,000 and I think, if he continued to read the

article in the Globe and Mail, he would have also read that it only effects

about 3 per cent of the doctors.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is still trying to put the

fear of, I do not know what, into the people of this Province, to say that

doctors are leaving because of what we have done in the health care system. The

fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, I stand by my previous statement which was

that no doctors to date have left because of the re-arrangements we have made in

the health care sector. I cannot guarantee the people of this Province that

doctors will not leave, I cannot guarantee that. All I can say is that we are

monitoring this on a daily basis, we have concerns, we do not want to lose any

of our specialists, to date we are not aware of any who have left because of the

re-arrangements we have made in health care. Some have left, Mr. Speaker, and no

doubt some will continue to leave, but we are very concerned and we certainly

hope that they do not leave.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a brief supplementary.

Will the Minister stop trying to blame the Opposition for

creating panic in this Province when in effect it is the doctors who are

applying to the Newfoundland Medical Association for information not us, but the

doctors themselves, caused by the Budget brought in by the Minister of Finance?

Will the Minister of Health confirm that he and the officials in the Department

of Finance are considering changing the capping procedure for Newfoundland

doctors so that it is not unfair to all doctors, and that it is going to be like

the Ontario capping process whereby only the most highly paid doctors, in excess

of $400,000, or in the Newfoundland's case it might be in excess of $200,000 or

$300,000, whatever is considered fair, that in effect there is a fairer capping

system that could be put in place, and that in effect the Minister's Department

is considering doing that just now?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, that question was dealt with

yesterday. I pointed out to hon. Members yesterday when the same question was

answered, that we have literally frozen the MCP Budget. It has been frozen. We

made minor adjustments for normal utilization increases. Now, I said yesterday

and I will say again, in case the hon. Member did not hear what I said, we have

said to the Newfoundland Medical Association we are interested in capping the

$120 million, that is capped. Now, if you can find a more equitable way that we

can maintain the cap but pay certain doctors who make less than $125,000 or

$150,000 whatever, by all means, Government's concern is to keep the cap at $120

million. We do not care how the Newfoundland Medical Association wants that

carried out. It does not matter at all, the $120 million stays.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. Member over the past

number of days talk about doctors leaving this Province for money. I must say

that is a very cynical view of the medical profession, which the hon. Member

has. If that were accurate, Mr. Speaker, if doctors only worked for money, Great

Britain would have no doctors, Sweden would have no doctors, most of Canada

would have no doctors, only Park Avenue in New York City, would have doctors.

The hon. Member has a very cynical view of doctors which I do not share.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the Minister of Justice.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the

Public Utilities Board I file the annual report of the operation of the Board

under The Automobile Insurance Act for the calendar year 1990, and that is made

pursuant to

Section 53 (1) of The Automobile Insurance Act. Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the

Canada Games Park Commission I would like to table the Auditor General's report

for the fiscal year ending March 31 1990.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I

will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend

Certain Departmental Acts And The Newfoundland Public Service Commission Act,

1973," Bill No. 36.

And I give notice that I will also on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Status Of Women Advisory Council

Act."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday while I was on the

west coast of the Province the Premier was asked a question concerning my

Ministry, and it involved the purchase of covers for the Arts and Culture

Centres throughout the Province.

Now prior to January of this year we were producing these

programmes in-house at the Arts and Culture Centre with the printing being done

outside. The design, layout and proofing was in fact done by the manager in

charge of that division. A decision was made to develop a new concept and to

formulate that concept with outside assistance. So those ideas and concepts had

to be formulated in order to bring in place a new programme and new covers and

so on.

That is permissable under a special delegated purchase

authority given to Cultural Affairs back in 1983 by the previous government.

That delegated purchase authority is still in effect, and in fact we are

permitted to access outside expertise and pay for that expertise if necessary

from time to time. I cannot say now that the design, idea and concept have been

finalized and in fact the covers are in use - and very successfully in use I

might add - that it will be no longer necessary of course to follow that

procedure in the future.

In fact I have asked my Director of Cultural Affairs,

Elizabeth Batstone, to have a look at the special delegated authority that was

given to us in 1983 as to whether or not it continues to be necessary or maybe

it should not be as broad as it is in fact. And some items - and she would need

to specify that for me - would continue to be under that authority, but others

could perhaps be put properly under the public tendering process as they were

previously.

But certainly in this case the authority is clearly in place

and public tendering was not necessary. It was only done because it is very

difficult to in fact tender for an idea or a concept, and that was in fact what

we were dealing with in this case.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a

petition of 1,312 citizens of the Province, many of them students at Memorial

University in St. John's. The prayer of the petition is as follows: we the

undersigned support the demands of the single parents at MUN that the Department

of Social Services change its policy regarding the inclusion as income of the

Canada Student Loan for purposes of calculating social assistance benefits.

Now I addressed this issue in Question Period today. I

pointed out that there has been a 20 per cent rise in the number of single

parent families on social assistance in just the past two years. Right now there

are 7500 single parent families in this Province on welfare, and by far the vast

majority of those families are lead by single mothers. We are talking about over

10,000 children of these single parents who are living in poverty. Mr. Speaker,

many single mothers on welfare desperately want to become self- sufficient and

for many of them the only way they are going to become independent is if they

further their education. However, the present rules, the rules that have been in

place for years, as the Minister is quick to point out, make it very difficult

for people to go to school. It is actually easier for many of these people to

stay home and simply collect welfare. Social assistance does not allow them to

live properly. The social assistance rates do not allow them to buy nutritious

food for themselves and their children, but it is worse when they try to get out

of the welfare trap by going to school, and perhaps the worst part of the social

assistance policy is the treatment of student aid. Even Canada Student Loans

that have to be paid back in full by students after they graduate are treated by

social services as non-allowable income. One single mother with whom I met today

just had to give up a university course because she simply could not afford to

continue. If she succeeds in going back to university this September under the

present policy, and recognizing that tuition fees are rising, she will be left

with only $500 for herself and her daughter to live on for about eight weeks

from mid-September until mid-November when she can expect to get her student

grant. That is what that woman is up against. Now, September is probably the

most expensive time of the year for single mothers. They have to incur the cost

of outfitting their children for school and they have to clothe their children

for cold weather. For any single mother on welfare now contemplating the

possibility of going to school in September she needs advanced notice. She needs

to know how much money she is going to have to work with. She has to make

advance arrangements for child care. I urge the Minister responsible for the

Status of Women, the Minister holding the Government's purse strings, and now

the Minister acting in Social Services, to try to wind up the study of this

social assistance policy and make a decision, and make the decision in time to

benefit social assistance recipients who may chose to go to school in September.

Allow them to pursue that option so that in one year, or four years time, they

can graduate and then become contributing members of society. That is all they

are asking, they are asking for a chance to educate themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words

in support of the petition. I am surprised that someone over there has not stood

to respond to the petition by the Member for Humber East.

Mr. Speaker, I have met with some of these people back a

month or so ago, and I wonder why it is taking the committee who is looking into

the problems so long. I have in my hand a letter written by one of the people

concerned - it must have been six or seven weeks ago that this committee was

formed - who in her letter, which was a submission to the Committee, asked the

question: `Do I give up what I am trying to do - which was trying to educate

herself - and become a part of your system?'

Now, I understand, Mr. Speaker, the person who wrote the

letter, who made this submission to the Committee, has now had to drop out, and

very well documented it was, too, with every expense that she had. Mr. Speaker,

very few members in this House of Assembly would even think of trying to live on

what that person, with her child, was trying to live on and even comprehend, in

their wildest dreams, trying to put themselves through university at the same

time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the other side may ask why

it was not done before. It is a problem now, and I, personally, was never aware

of it before. But I say, now that the problem is here and the people have come

to us, and now that a committee has been formed to look into it, some action on

it should take place. It is not something that has to take six months or a year.

There are people, at the present time, who are dropping out and going back to a

life on social assistance and, Mr. Speaker, there is no need for that. There is

no reason why Government cannot respond.

No one has yet adequately explained to this House of Assembly

why Government would treat as income, a loan that a person must pay back. Why is

this such a big problem? Perhaps the Minister of Finance might get up and

explain why Government would even want to do that? But it is a problem that is

there now, a very, very serious problem, particularly for those people who are

trying.

I think, Mr. Speaker, any person who is willing, as this

person was, after some years out of school, who wants to go back, who was on

social assistance - and we know, Mr. Speaker, that if you have a university

education, the statistics go up for employment. So, why would not the Department

of Social Services bend over backwards to make sure that these people - and they

are not asking for something more, they are asking that their loan, which they

must pay back, not be considered income.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more I can say, except to ask

the President of Treasury Board and the Premier and the Minister of Finance and

whoever else is over there, to pay attention to the plea of these young people -

these citizens, not all young people -who have found themselves in this

situation and who want to get ahead but cannot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to say that I understand the

prayer of the petition. I know there is a problem here that some (inaudible)

address. We will try to address it as quickly as possible.

I thank the single parents group for the effort they have put

into making their position known. They have not only talked to the Member for

Humber East and other members opposite, they have talked to many members on this

side, many ministers on this side, and they have made their case very strongly.

I congratulate them on the way in which they have lobbied, in this particular

issue. It will help us in our decision, certainly, understanding what the

position is. We will try to deal with the problem that the previous minister

indicated was going to be studied. We will try to deal with it as quickly as

possible and I remind members opposite that, once again, we will do what we can

within the limits of what we have available; we will try to do what we can to

solve many of the problems that people, in less fortunate circumstances, find

themselves.

I apologize for not being able to be more definite, at this

point in time, but I can assure hon. members we will deal with it as quickly, as

expeditiously as possible, and inform the House and the single parents group as

to what our decision will be.

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

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

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of

740 residents of Western Labrador, people who are concerned about the quality of

health care being delivered in Labrador West. The prayer of the petition that

these 740 people have signed is: `We, the concerned citizens of the groups

against hospital cutbacks, would like to canvass your support against the

cutbacks at the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador City.'

Mr. Speaker, the 740 people who have signed this petition are

but a small fraction of the numbers of people who are concerned about the

quality of health care being delivered by this rgime since they have been

elected. They have cut back in their last Budget $870,000, a 12 per cent cutback

of funds to the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital to deliver health care

to an area, Mr. Speaker, that produces more revenue per capita than any other

area in this Province and probably, indeed, more than any other area of this

country.

They need more money -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) they want more money.

(Inaudible) why they want more.

MR. A. SNOW: They want more health care. Now that is the

problem with this rgime, Mr. Speaker, you have fools elected from the City of

St. John's who cannot see past the overpass. This fool, like a lot of fools

inside the overpass, does not recognize the problems associated with delivering

health care 600, 700 or 800 miles from St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are so parochial.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the 700 people who signed this

petition, and the 2,500 who signed the petitions that I have presented before

are not parochial, they are concerned about health care. That is what is wrong

with them, they are concerned about it. And this Minister of Finance, who slips

his slimy little hands in their pockets every two weeks, hauls out the tax

dollars and says they are too parochial up there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they are concerned because he has no

concern for the quality of health care being delivered or the quality of any

Government service that is being delivered up there. He is not concerned -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) sensible.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is sensible. He is not

concerned, you are not concerned that 3,750 fewer patient visits will be

delivered by a physiotherapist. You are not concerned about that, because you

got your silly little head stuck in a book down here in St. John's. You are not

concerned about the lack of a speech therapist because you do not want to hear

them. You do not want to hear the problems of the people of Western Labrador.

You do not care that we only have one surgeon. You do not care that if that

surgeon has an accident we will not have any surgeon up there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I said they pay the most taxes per capita

of any electoral district in this Province. Now they are proud of that. They are

proud of the fact that they spend so much money to run this Province, but what

makes them afraid and what also angers them, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we

have fools sitting around the Cabinet Table like the hon. the Minister of

Finance who says they do not care. You are parochial if you are worried about

health care in Western Labrador. You are parochial if you do not recognize that

you live in the North. You are parochial if you are concerned about not having a

good quality health care system in Labrador City. You are parochial. Now, Mr.

Speaker, they have a concern about that. They have asked me to express that

concern in this House. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will be able

to convince the hon. Minister of Health that the people of Western Labrador have

earned the right to have good quality health care, despite the arrogance of the

hon. the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Despite his arrogance, they have

earned that right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of

Finance is running off at the mouth again. He does not recognize that the people

of Western Labrador live 800 miles from St. John's, which is the centre of

medical delivery when people have to get an air ambulance from Western Labrador.

He does not recognize that, Mr. Speaker, because he has not been outside the

overpass. I mean, the fool has his head stuck in the sand, at Memorial

University, or now, in the Cabinet room, here in Confederation Building. And I

hope that the Minister of Health, almost living up North, being from the

Northern Peninsula, will be able to convince this fool that there are other

places in this Province that deserve and have earned the quality of health care

they should get in Western Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I have been trying to hear what the hon. Member was saying. I

think he was saying: `...is a fool.' I believe that is what he was saying, I am

not sure. If the hon. member was saying that word, it is not parliamentary to

refer to each other as "fools" in the House.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, if the term is unparliamentary,

I withdraw it.

Orders of the Day

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: The Government House Leader and the Minister

of Forestry are not here at the moment, but we have just reached an

understanding, so, I guess I will have to speak for the two of them while they

are rushing to come back into the House.

The first order that we had agreed to call was Order 29,

which is second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Crop

Insurance Act, 1973," Bill No. 30. That was a decision we just made, I mention

to the Minister of Health, who is acting. Did he mention that to you?

MR. DECKER: No.

MR. SIMMS: It was something we just decided at the

moment. Now, unfortunately, the Forestry Minister and the Government House

Leader are not here so -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I cannot really introduce it, I am not a

member of the Government. Perhaps the Minister of Health could introduce it. It

is Bill No. 30. I understand it is fairly straightforward. It really gives the

Provincial Government the opportunity, now, to collect funding from the Federal

Government under existing agreements -

AN HON. MEMBER: Insurance.

MR. SIMMS: - the Crop Insurance Agreement. It is

self-explanatory. So, if he would introduce it, our critic is prepared to

respond and we could then move it into Committee.

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

Newfoundland Crop Insurance Act, 1973". (Bill No. 30).

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have already discussed with the hon. the Opposition

House Leader and the President of Treasury Board, this is a very minor piece of

housekeeping legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to amend the

Newfoundland Crop Insurance Act, 1973, so that it conforms to federal enabling

legislation. This will allow the Province to sign a new crop insurance agreement

with Canada, wherein the Federal Government cost-shares the programme.

The revised Federal Act that we must comply with and do

amending legislation, changes from a continuous - the present Act is continuous,

there are no time limits on the term,

whereas the new amended and revised

Federal Act changes from continuous to five-year agreements. For that reason,

Mr. Speaker,

Section 18 of the Provincial Act must be deleted in order to allow

the Province to sign a new insurance agreement as per the Federal legislation.

One of the reasons why it is imperative that we do this now,

as opposed to a fall sitting, is in order for the Province to apply and be paid

for losses under the Crop Insurance, effective from the time the new legislation

is enacted. So, as soon as we do this amendment, we will be in a position to

have the payouts under the Crop Insurance Agreement funded. Mr. Speaker, I do

not think there is much more to be said. I will answer any questions the hon.

Member may have and leave it at that.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions

pertaining, under the Crop Insurance Act, to the payment of the premiums,

primarily, and the agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but I do not see anything in this, and

is there anything now - probably an opportunity to ask the Minister about

different commodities being covered or different premiums or whatever. Is this

covered in the new agreement or is this not a blanket or general agreement?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) agree.

MR. WOODFORD: Okay. Well, that is one of the things I

would like to have answered, because there has been some concern, on the

different commodity groups, as the Minister is well aware, of other commodities

being covered under the Crop Insurance Act, the premiums that are being paid,

and the different percentages. Now, under the new agreement, there is a

different percentage paid on the federal/provincial cost-shared agreement. So,

those are the three basic questions, the new structure for the cost-shared

federal/provincial, the premiums, whether they changed or not, pertaining to the

individual farmer, and the different commodity groups that are covered. There

was an automatic renewal before and now the agreement would be locked in for

whatever the agreement is, one, two, or three years.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now, he

closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I advise the hon. member that all the

commodities - and I cannot list them all right off the top of my head, but I can

get them if he wishes - all commodities covered under the existing legislation

are covered. It is the total crop insurance scheme we are talking about here,

and this particular amendment will have no effect on the existing premiums.

There are no premium changes whatsoever; because the purpose of this amendment

is to allow us to `piggyback', for want of a better word, or to mesh, go along

and dovetail with the new federal scheme that does make changes, and goes from

continuous to five-year lock-in, and that kind of thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: I will try to answer you if I could -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: On the federal/provincial agreement, the

different structure - it used to be 50/25 or 75/25. Is that changed? It is the

same?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I think this will clarify for the member's

satisfaction, nothing under the existing Act is changing. The crop insurance is

not changing, other than the way it is administered, no premium change, no

commodity change, and no change in the cost- sharing between the producer, the

Province, and the Federal Government. It is to accommodate the new federal

legislation that covers the agreement, as it existed.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Crop

Insurance Act, 1973," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the

Whole House on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a quick point of order.

Although we did not follow it yesterday, I do not think, in dealing with the

other two concurrence reports, I think there are a number of members who would

like to have a few words on this. Could we agree to ten minutes speaking time,

and if you want to get up a second time, I guess, you can get up a second time,

there is no big problem. I think there is only an hour or so left.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 4, the concurrence motion on the

Social Services Committee.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: I may not need my ten minutes, so maybe one of

my hon. friends over there could use my time, as well. If you remember,

yesterday afternoon in the House when the Social Services Committee Estimates

were called, surprisingly, my friend for Lewisporte rose, if you remember, and

spoke on another group. We did that for a reason. We knew that our hon.

colleague from Humber East was not in the House and she definitely would have

wanted to comment on the Committee, and maybe, my hon. friend from St. John's

East, as well, so we did that on purpose. There was a little bit of confusion

yesterday, but we did that because we are so kind-hearted, and we want to try to

get along as well as we can with our friends from the other side. On behalf of

the Member for St. John's South, the Member is not with us, but he has asked me

to say a few words of thanks to the members of the Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Cabinet appointment, I

suppose.

MR. REID: Probably. Let us hope - a good man!

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for St. John's South, I

would like to thank the Member for Humber East, as vice-chair, the Member for

Trinity North, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Ferryland, the

Member for St. John's East. We went through Social Services, Education, Health,

Environment and Lands, as well as Justice. I must say everything went smoother

than I had anticipated. I was surprised the Members of the Committees both the

Opposition Members as well as the Government Members managed to get along so

well at the meetings. It was really a little bit to my dismay because I really

thought I was the only Chairman that could get along with the hon. Member for

Humber East, but I am after finding out that the Member for St. John's South is

after moving in on me and now he and the Member for Humber East are getting

along probably a little better than we do. There was just a slight tinge of

jealousy all during the meetings, but I must say the Member for Humber East did

an excellent job.

The respect of the various Ministers for the Committee

Members as well as the good job that the Ministers have done individually, and

to be just two years in Government and to see without hesitation the number of

Ministers answering questions one after the other without even getting

assistance from their staff they had with them, is certainly an indication that

the Ministers of this Government are certainly well versed in their departments.

They are all doing an excellent job as far as I am concerned and as far as the

committee is concerned.

I will finish off by making just a brief comment and thank

the Clerk's Table and the Clerk's Office and their staff for helping us with

these meetings, as well all those Members who participated. I hope the air of

co-operation that has been shown between the Members of the Opposition and the

Members of the Government in these Estimates Committees can continue in this

House. Possibly, if it does continue in this House - the air of co-operation -

maybe what we have been elected for we can accomplish.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am a bit taken aback by the remarks of the hon. Member for

Carbonear, I have to say. Both because he suggests it is improbable that I can

get along with anyone, but also because he talked about how remarkably smoothly

our committee proceeded. On the whole, I think it was a satisfactory experience.

While I tend to recall sparks flying on more than one occasion, we were given

the responsibility of scrutinizing the estimates of five of the largest spending

departments of the Government: Health, Education, Social Services, Justice and

Environment and Lands. So we had a big job to do.

I was reasonably satisfied with the proceedings for two or

three of the Departments in terms of the willingness of Ministers to address

themselves to the questions posed by the Committee Members. There were

frustrations, however, particularly with the late Minister of Social Services.

The Minister of Social Services avoided answering questions, even questions that

were simple and that were asked repeatedly. I tried to find out from him, I

tried many times prior to the committee meetings, but I resumed my efforts to

find out from him the financial implications of last fall's decision to

categorize maintenance and child support as non-allowable income for social

assistance purposes. He denys there was any saving to the Government. Now, for

thousands of single mothers and their children there was a loss of social

assistance. There was a drop in their family income of up to 20 per cent. So,

conversely there had to be a saving for the Government. I am fairly certain that

the amount of money involved for the Government was minuscule but it was very,

very significant for the single-parent families affected. I said to the Minister

finally: the reason you are avoiding answering this question is that you are

embarrassed, you are ashamed to admit that this change which has been so keenly

debated and which has caused so much damage actually meant such few dollars for

the Government. At any rate, the Minister of Social Services first nor last has

not answered that question.

That was not the only question, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Social Services skated around. So our efforts to analyze the Social

Services estimates were rather frustrating even though the social assistance

case load has risen at an alarming rate over the last two years since the

Liberals opposite formed the Government, the Government has actually cut back on

its social services funding. That is a fact that is stated in black and white in

the Budget Estimates. If you go to the last page of the Social Services

section

of the Estimates, you will see the grand total of provincial spending last year

which is double underlined, and then to the left you will see the grand total of

what the Government has budgeted to spend in Social Services this year, and you

will easily see that the Government has forecast spending $4 million less this

year than it spent last year. The Federal contribution however has gone up, so

the Provincial Government taking advantage of the greater Federal Government

contribution, will be able to do more in Social Services this year than last

year.

However, I come back to the fact that over the past two years

there has been a shocking increase in the number of people in this Province on

welfare. From March of 1989 until March of 1991 there has been a 20 per cent

increase in the number of citizens of our Province on social assistance. There

are now 50,000 men, women and children in this Province on welfare. Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Social Services could not offer an explanation for that

phenomenon, neither could he offer any hope that the trend is going to be

reversed.

The statistics indicate a failure on the part of the Wells

Administration to manage the affairs of the Province to stimulate the economy.

Now granted the Government is facing an international recession, the Government

is facing, relative to inflation, a drop in Federal Government transfers, so it

is not an easy situation for any Government, but the Wells Administration is

taking a laissez-faire approach, washing its hands of responsibility, saying the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is expressing hope that the economy,

on its own, may pick up. What the Government is doing is paying 50,000 people

welfare. Instead of that, Mr. Speaker, the Government should be creating jobs,

making work, allowing people who are able to occupy themselves productively. And

as we have seen in the past from our experience with community development

projects many people, single mothers on social assistants particularly once in

the work force through a Government created project, are able to stay in the

work force.

I say to the Member for Stephenville and my colleague from

Port au Port here, one of the projects that was run by the Government previously

through social services community development on the west coast in the areas

represented by the Members involved social assistance recipients with the skills

of sewing to make quilts. Now quilt making is an old Newfoundland tradition.

Quilts are prized more than ever by today's society. Quilts have even been

elevated to the status of art. Our Provincial Government art collection, which

was started by the previous administration, I am glad to see is being continued

by the new Government, includes quilts made by crafts people and artists. Now,

the late Minister of Social Services scoffed at the Bay St. George area quilt

making project, but it seems to me that was a project that was very worthwhile.

I do not know the details of it. Perhaps it could have been done better, but the

basic concept, I think, is admirable. It involves drawing on a traditional

skill, which many women in particular, still possess, and which some of the

younger women can learn from their mothers and grandmothers. It involves

capitalizing on the growing market in North America and the more affluent parts

of the world for quality handmade goods. It seems to me that if that kind of

project were fostered it would be a way for individuals to involve themselves in

productive activity and acquire home skills that would allow them to perhaps, on

their own, carry out crafts making so that they could either make a living, or

at least supplement their family income.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of ways that Government

could be doing better. Despite the hard times there are thousands of ideas the

Government could be drawing on, instead of simply passively throwing up their

hands collectively, and saying, as the Premier said to the fish plant workers

from Grand Bank: I could if I would, but I cannot, or saying as the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations said about the people on Fogo Island: well, I

guess they will have to go on welfare. Well, 50,000 men, women, and children in

this Province today are on welfare. Now some of them have no choice. Some are

disabled, some just cannot hold down a job, but I would suggest that many of

them not only are able to work but would much prefer to be occupied in some

productive activity, earning their own money, living self-sufficiently, and

being independent. We saw some of them in the gallery here today, single

mothers, single mothers who want to go to school, but who are finding that the

system is discouraging them from that ambition. I think that the Minister

responsible for the status of women is sensitive to those problems, and I am

optimistic that if supported by the Premier and his colleagues in the Cabinet,

that he will, fairly quickly, bring about some improvements in the social

assistance policy that will support single parents and others on welfare in

their choice to go to school. I certainly wish him well. Mr. Speaker, when we

were looking at the Social Services Estimates we questioned the policies

regarding children in need of protection. The Minister told us that despite his

earlier projection that the number of reports of child abuse was levelling off

and would actually go down in time, but in fact the numbers are still rising.

There continue to be more and more cases of child abuse.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue later.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak to the concurrence motion on the Estimates

for Social Services. We did, of course, consider five Departments, including

Justice, Social Services, Health, Environment and Lands, and Education, and

although the Member for Carbonear said that he thought that the Committee was

most harmonious, I found in fact that the Committee was not harmonious at all,

particularly in dealing with certain of the Ministers who were rather reluctant

to answer questions. In fact in some cases, in particular the former Minister of

Social Services, treating questions with great disdain, and really trying to

find ways of either confusing the questions or not answering them, or failing to

deal with the issues that were raised.

I am hoping to speak more than once in this short debate so I

want to concentrate on just a couple of issues in this particular intervention.

I do see the Minister of Health in the House and I wanted to bring up a matter

which I raised with him during the course of the Estimates committee. Of course

a lot of issues were raised with the Minister of Health but this is one which I

think is important because it speaks to a most important issue about the future

of health care in this Province. We were talking in many respects about the

close downs and the closures and the changes in health care as a result of this

Government's policy. But one issue which I asked him about, and discovered for

the first time - it did not get any media attention - but I think it is a matter

of great importance, and it has to do with the issue of research into health

care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chair could ask

for order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: I agree.

MR. DOYLE: It is terrible, nobody listening. Government

not listening to what is going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the Opposition.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question that I

asked had to do with the funding for research that was made available to this

Province as a result of Federal Government changes to the patent drug

legislation, Bill C-22. This legislation was designed to assist the drug

companies to have longer protection periods for patents and in fact make it more

difficult for generic drugs to be used across this country, that Departments of

Health would have to wait up to ten years instead of after four years to use

generic drugs.

That cost a great deal of money to this Province and every

other province in this country and was strongly opposed in the Parliament of

Canada by the New Democratic Party and also indeed by the Liberal Party in the

Federal House. The legislation was passed nonetheless. And one of the things

that the Federal Government did to make it a little bit more palatable from a

public relations point of view was to establish a fund for research across this

country. There was a formula that was to put slightly under $2.5 million into

the hands of this Province to be used for medical research.

Well, that in fact was the intention expressed by this

Government and a previous administration. In fact I have with me a press release

that was issued at the time, on April 14 1989, by the previous administration,

the previous Minister of Health. In that press release it was announced that

there would be a health research foundation and that anticipated was to be $2.4

million available for research. Now that was obviously during the election

campaign, but the funds that were identified as being from Federal Government

sources were earmarked by that administration for the purpose of health research

in this Province. The Minister of Health at that time indicated its intention

that this money be used to deal with health care delivery systems, research and

development. This was designed to find ways of introducing health care or

delivering health care in Newfoundland, presumably in ways that would provide

better quality care, and perhaps in a less expensive way.

Well this Government took up that cause and in fact - I am

reading from a news

article in The Evening Telegram, November 21, 1989, the hon.

Chris Decker, the current Minister of Health, is quoted as saying that the

Province has $1.2 million so far, received from the Federal Government through

this special fund set up. And the fund was established by the Federal Government

under the Patent Rights Administration, anticipated was $2.25 million or

thereabouts. Mr. Decker said the Government had this money, it was being held in

trust. The Government wants to prepare a well reasoned approach with regard to

how this money will be used. He said a decision will be made in a reasonable

time and not unduly delayed. That was November 21 1989.

Well, we have heard very little about this money from that

point on. So I asked the Minister in the estimates committee what had happened

to this money, how much was there, was there any more coming? And the answer

was: yes, there was more coming, the last payment I think is May 31. And that

their anticipated amount was around $2.3 million or $2.4 million. When I asked

what happened to the money: was there going to be any research into health care

delivery systems, the answer was no. 'No, we held that money in trust for a

while, and then we decided to throw it in the general revenues.' Well, that is

what this Government did with the fund that was specifically earmarked,

according to the Minister held in trust by this Government. I do not know what

the trust conditions were or whether it was really a legal trust at all. But the

Minister of Health and his Department decided that this money would not be spent

on research into health care.

Meanwhile we have people at Memorial University here in this

Province anxious to do research into finding ways of delivery of health care in

this Province that would result in a higher quality of health care delivery,

particularly in rural Newfoundland and, I would venture to say, at less cost. We

have representations being made to this Government, representations being made

internally, to make funds available for research into health care delivery. We

have one experiment being conducted right now which the Minister of Health is

very proud of in terms of delivery of nursing care on a primary basis on the

southern shore of Newfoundland. We have many models to choose from and many

opportunities to find ways of integrating a health care system with the quality

personnel that are available and to provide a better service and a higher

quality of care, particularly in rural Newfoundland. We have people willing to

do that, do the research that is required, yet the Government has decided that

it does not want to do that, that they are going to throw this money into

general revenues where it will not have any significant affect on the health

care system of this Province. Meanwhile the Government is cutting back in areas

of health care that are desperately needed in this Province.

The Minister indicated that there was no money available,

that we could not do that, this, or anything else because every time a decision

had to be made we had to decide whether to cut back on a certain number of

hospitals, beds, or nurses or other positions. Well the Minister seemed to find

yesterday enough money to look after the latest problem that he is having to

deal with with the doctors in this Province. Apparently he has found money, and

perhaps it will be a couple of million dollars, to look after the latest outcry

from the medical profession, quite properly made, that they were not getting any

consideration - even though they were being capped - for the normal increased

work load that was anticipated, and that was constantly being added to the

Medicare system.

Well, the Minister can find money when people are beating on

his door and when people are threatening in fact, I suppose, to cause problems

for the health care system. But yet he is unable to look in the long term and

see that to use this money which was specifically earmarked from Federal sources

for this specific purpose, he was unable to have enough stamina and strength to

say to whoever - perhaps the President of Treasury Board who was telling him how

much money he was going to have - he was unable to say to him: no, it is

important in the long term interest of health care in this Province that this

money that is specifically designed for this purpose be used to improve the

health care system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like

to have a few short words in this debate as to the estimates that were presented

by the hon. Ministers of a variety of Departments. From Health, Education,

Social Services.

I was reading The Globe and Mail this morning and the Federal

Minister of Health was in the paper and he was talking - that is Benoit Bouchard

- about refusing Quebec's proposal to put a small user fee or $5 user fee on a

service. Nobody likes user fees of course, and nobody likes to see user fees in

or whatever. But anyway, the Quebec Government is trying to deal with how they

fund their health care system. So Mr. Bouchard warned them yesterday that it

would be discriminating against the poor if they were to bring in a user fee for

the specific service that they were talking about. And he says: it is a very

dangerous field, he told reporters outside the House of Commons. He said: if you

charge a user fee I fear that poor people will not go for the service because

they will fear having to pay money. I will never accept two health systems, one

for the poor and one for the rich. There is a risk of that happening. He also

confirmed that his Department had advised that the $5 user fee would be a

violation of the Canada Health Act.

Now I was reading that this morning and I am looking at the

Budget that we had to bring in this Province this year, and looking at the lack

of funding that we have gotten from the Federal Government for health care in

the last couple of years. I took some time a number of weeks ago to go back and

look and ask officials of Finance and Health how much funding we had lost in

health care from the Federal Government responsible for giving us certain funds

at least to maintain a national standard. It does not matter which government is

in. Don Cameron is over in Nova Scotia trying to fix up his system. In BC they

are having the same problem. Even in Ontario they are having the same problem.

So there is a problem here that we have to deal with and every provincial

government has the same problem.

Until the Federal Government decides on what standards in

health care there is going to be then every province, especially the poor ones,

are going to have an extreme problem in the next number of years. I am sure the

previous government, the Members opposite who were in a previous government,

wrestled with the same problem. That it is very difficult to bring in changes or

to do things if you have not got the dollars. And the unfortunate

part is that

when you are counting on certain dollars, you are expecting certain things, and

so you try to plan. But that is very difficult to do with the Federal fiscal

transfer system that we have in this country. And that is the other question

that I would like to get to.

Right now the fiscal transfer arrangements are being

renegotiated or being looked at by the Federal Government with the provinces,

and I can already see that there is a battle brewing on that end. It is to see

how different funds are going to come from the Federal Government to the

provinces to deal with national standards in a variety of areas. Unfortunately

when I read something like this from Benoit Bouchard, the hon. Minister of

Health, it kind of gets you poisoned, actually. Because you are there trying to

do the best you can with the limited resources you have. We are in a recession

not because the Provincial Government put us there, or any other provincial

government. Unfortunately some policies of the Federal Government - not all, but

some maybe - may have something to do with it. The economists can agree and

disagree on that fact. But let's get away from who is to blame, but how are we

going to solve the problem? And that is the question - how are you going to

solve the problem.

I look at health care and I see the big geography that we

have, we have a real problem in this Province in the next number of years, not

only because of the lack of funding that the Federal Government is providing now

to the poorer provinces. Because most of the new dollars - and I think the

Minister of Health would concur with me on this one - that are going in, 75 per

cent to 80 per cent of it is Provincial dollars. Which means that the coffers

that we are collecting Provincially, most of the new money going into health is

coming from the Provincial side. The Federal side, because of its cutback on

spending in health side, and also in education but in health care also, is

showing that most of the new dollars going in, for every new dollar going in, 70

cents or 80 cents of that is from Provincial coffers.

And that is becoming a very disturbing point and is something

that everybody should take into account when looking at how you are going to

deal with the health care system in the future. Because the population is aging.

Demographics tell us that we are going to need certain services in the next

number of years. The Provincial Government has to try to find a way - whichever

government is here or in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or wherever - these

governments have to find a way to deal with the demographics that they are going

to have to deal with over the next number of years and in health care they have

to deal with them soon. Because if you do not plan ahead of time you are going

to be in some real crisis situations over the next five to fifteen years. Some

serious problems that are coming along and they have to be dealt with.

Now we are going to try here to do what we can with it but we

are also going to need the help of the Federal Government and the fiscal

transfer arrangements which are now being negotiated are extremely important to

this Government and to the people of this Province, as to what kind of a

standard they can expect in health care, what kind of services they can expect

and how much they are going to have to pay for it, and you know, it is almost as

if we are being forced to - in Canada now, the Federal Government is forcing

provinces to go to user fees or forcing them to go to other ways of collecting

revenue, so that they can try to maintain the system that they have, but there

are also again, changes that are going to have to be made to the system to deal

with it because the reality is, we are going to need different services in the

future for senior citizens, more senior citizens who are living longer and who

require new services and expanded services.

We have also our younger population to think about and it is

a very difficult process, but it is something that the Provincial Government has

to tackle and will tackle as best they can. When I read the comment this morning

from Benoit Bouchard, I was disappointed because he is telling you: do not do

this or do not do that, but really, you are in a straight jacket in this

Province if you are trying to improve your health care system and it is very

difficult to do, you just have to try to find the money from your limited

resources as best you can. In taxation measures in this Province, we are very

limited in what we can do now as to additional revenue, so you are almost

dependent on the economy and the way it is going, if it is good or bad and that

again, sometimes is not in our hands, some of it is and that is very difficult.

I would only hope that over the next number of months the

economy will get better in this Province. This Government is going to work on

that, and is working on it trying to improve it. It will happen, it will bring

more revenue which will allow us to do this. But the straight jacket on health

care has to come off by the Federal Government, if they are going to take

responsibility or have responsibility or have part of the responsibility, they

have to do it equitably, they have to share the resources with the poorer

provinces and allow them to build up to the national standard that we all want

to see.

Mr. Speaker, the nation has the best health care system in

the world, but there are a lot of discrepancies in that health care system from

coast to coast, and whichever Federal Government is there, they will have to

decide what the standard is going to be and they will have to do it soon. They

will have to decide where we are going in the future on this, as it is extremely

important for the people who are going to service this, for the people who are

working in the profession, and the strain that they are under, and also it is

very difficult for the provinces and their governments in trying to deal with

this very important measure.

Again, I think it is over $800 million dollars going into the

health care system this year, a large amount of money with our big geography and

we have to find a way to do it as best we can without the help we need,

unfortunately, we need more help from the Federal Government in that sense and

if they are going to take this responsibility, Mr. Speaker, I wish they would

take it upon themselves to take it seriously and to provide it to us.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few moments to have a few words on the concurrence

debate, although I must say that it is pretty hard to concur with some of the

happenings as a result of the Budget, and the discussion on the Estimates; there

are a couple of areas of concern that I would like to talk about briefly. One,

in relation to the Department of Social Services. I know the new acting Minister

is sitting there all ears, wondering how he can make his mark on the Department

in a few short days and I will say to him, it probably will not be hard if he

would have a quick look at some of the recent decisions made in the Department

and the effect they have had on a number of people.

It is only now, within the last few days, that individuals

are starting to come forth and make it known to politicians or whomever some of

the problems they are experiencing, and it is now I suppose the chickens are

coming home to roost, the effect of the Minister's decisions in relation to his

cutbacks, is having on the average recipient spread throughout the Province and

in fact, listening to the statistics quoted lately, a large number of recipients

spread throughout the Province.

I suggest to the new Minister that he should look at the

heavy load placed upon social workers in certain parts of the Province,

particularly in the areas where office staff have already been removed; I refer

him specifically to the St. Mary's office where the manager was taken out. The

former Minister a few weeks ago in answering my question: I asked him who was in

charge, he said there is a supervisor, and I suggested to him at the time that

he should be careful with his answers, and the Minister if he researched it will

see that there is no supervisor. No supervisor was appointed when the manager

was taken out, no supervisor has been appointed yet. And the workers in the

office are having to get together each day to look for direction. They are not

under anybody specifically. Somebody breezes in from the regional office every

now and then, sits down and makes a list of cuts, not realizing the effect, not

knowing the local circumstances, not knowing the personal circumstances. And

consequently a lot of people are being hurt severely by some of the decisions

being made.

The removal of one staff out of four, so that is - well

actually one-quarter, one-third, basically of the working staff, if you

eliminate the secretary, in the office has been removed. Which means that the

three remaining people have to pick up the extra work load. On top of that, as

we see more and more cases being added to the social services list then the work

load is becoming onerous indeed.

So perhaps the new Minister would look at that and in areas

of need make sure that there are enough people in the offices to serve the needs

of the people who themselves really have no recourse. All they know is the local

worker who visits their home or they know there is an office in the area which

some of them can get to. Some of them are fifty and sixty miles away from the

office. So consequently they have very little recourse to anybody else. In

relation to the cutbacks, where people have - drug cards have been taken on

them, housing payments have been chopped, people have been eliminated. One

person because he was getting two cents too much has been eliminated from the

list, even though the person's circumstances were trying, by people who do not

understand the individual case loads.

The only response is: tell them to appeal. An appeal to whom?

All of us know many of the people who are recipients of social assistance, who

know very little about how or where to appeal. And even when they do quite often

they are appealing to the same people who made the decision in the first place.

So it is certainly not the proper way to treat such people. I think the Minister

should look upon these things immediately.

The transportation problems that have been brought to the

attention of the House in recent days should certainly be looked at. I have no

argument at all with the Department for trying to tidy up some of the

transportation costs. I have personally witnessed in the past people I will

consider to be able bodied people standing by the side of the road watching the

regular taxi pass by where you could go to St. John's for $20, and having a

special taxi haul up and bring them out at a cost of probably $120, just because

they are on social assistance, with maybe nothing wrong except for the fact they

could not find employment. That to me is total and utter abuse and I have no

argument at all with trying to tidy up a system like that.

But I do have an argument when a person who has a child who

is disabled and who has to have regular treatment - "regular" meaning on the

proper time and the proper day - cannot receive proper assistance to pay for

transportation for that child. That person is supposed to try to combine with

others who might be going. That is okay if you are going visiting the welfare

office or you are going for a general visit to a doctor's office or whatever.

But not when you are dealing with specific cases. So in cases like that

certainly there are exceptions to every rule, and hopefully the Minister will

look upon making sure his local offices understand that where the need is for

specific attention that special attention be given.

In relation to the Department of Education I would be remiss

if I did not say a few words to my good friend the Minister of Education. As we

basically get down to the point where the Budget is approved and the Minister

can go off and spend his dollars and implement the decisions that he has made,

all I can say to the Minister is I wish him luck. The Minister will find,

perhaps not so this time of the year, because in the field most things are

flowing and have flowed through the year. The decisions that are being

implemented now were ones that were brought in earlier in the year. The funding

that is being spent funding that was available and so on.

It is when September rolls around and we get into October and

November and the boards see what they are without, when the people in the field,

the teachers, the administrators, find out that the expertise they valued for so

long, from the Minister's department, is no longer there, because many of these

people are gone with the wind; and when they look at the new programmes they

wanted to implement, and look at the field of special education, they will find

there are some real difficulties there. And it will not be, as I said, until

they get into the new school year, that these things start to take effect. I

believe the Minister will have some real problems in the fall, trying to explain

how he could sit there and put up with the severe and vicious cuts to his

budget. When I raise the question of lack of funding he always says, boards will

have more money than they had last year, and when he is asked to explain that he

will say, practically - well, not practically, I presume every school tax

authority throughout the Province was given the go-ahead to raise money. You

know, that is really funny, because if the Minister had not been here during the

couple of years preceding the last election, to hear the President of Treasury

Board, in particular, day after day - he was education critic for a while,

asking me a couple of questions, in fact, over his two year stint - to hear the

Minister of Health, the Minister of Transportation and others talk about school

was school tax authorities and, consequently, these people took full advantage

of it, to the point where, even the President of Treasury Board brought a

resolution before the House asking that school tax authorities be abolished, and

many of them committed. It is on - dig back through Hansard; it is in Hansard,

on the Order Paper. You will find that many of them, during the campaign - the

Minister of Transportation just coming in, you know, on his ads. His one big

commitment was to abolish school tax authorities. And the Minister still wants

to do it, undoubtedly, but the unfortunate thing about it is to hear a Minister

say that they should be abolished, they are wrong, they are unfair. And, in many

respects, those statements are true. I always admitted that when I was Minister

of Education. The school tax authorities were unpopular, but I would be a very

popular Minister if I could stand up and say we will abolish them. But knowing a

little bit more about the education system than many of the people opposite, we

said, if it could be done, if somebody would show me how we could get $30,000

into the school system, into the hands of the local boards, the result of which,

the expenditure of which, will be determined by the local boards themselves,

then I will agree to abolish school tax authorities. Nobody, nobody, from the

field or anywhere else came up with a better way to put money into the schools.

So, it is a bit ironic that the Minister stands and says -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Already? Well, I will get back to it. Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House to concur in the report of

the Social Services Committee?

All those in favour, please say, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please say `nay'.

Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 5, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 13. The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill No. 13, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Law Reform

Commission Act, 1971." I do not have a great deal of knowledge about the

details, Mr. Speaker. However, if there are any particular problems with any

clause in this very important piece of legislation, I am sure the Minister of

Justice will be able to satisfy everybody and answer every question and every

concern, to everybody's satisfaction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Law Reform

Commission Act, 1971," (Bill No. 13)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the Bill,

without amendment, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1977". (Bill

No. 5).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the Bill

without amendment, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Revise And Amend The Law Respecting A

Pension Plan For Employees Of The Government Of The Province And Others". (Bill

No. 6).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are some very

simple changes. There is a

section that was cross-referenced incorrectly, it

says Sections 11 and 12 but it should only be

Section 11, so, switching the

sequence of two clauses, Clause Nos. 12 and 13, Clause No. 13 becoming Clause

No. 12, and Clause No. 12 becoming Clause No. 13, makes, I think, for the better

flow of the document, and delete that cross-reference that should not have been

there in the first place.

On motion, Clause 1, as amended, carried.

On motion, Clauses 2 to 10, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there an amendment to Clause 11?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: I could help him put it through, if he wishes,

but would the Government House Leader, maybe, like to -

MR. RIDEOUT: Put it through for him. Show him how to do

it.

MR. SIMMS: Are there a slew more of these things? Have we

bunch of other ones? We do not have copies though. I say to the Government House

Leader, why do we not adjourn the debate at Clause 11 of this Bill and jump on

to the next one, which is Bill No. 3, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law

Respecting Juries?" Would the Government House Leader agree to adjourn the

debate on Clause 11 now, and give us a chance to straighten out on this Bill?

Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader and I just had a

quick discussion. I think we could agree to adjourn debate at the present time

on Clause 11 of Bill 6, which we are dealing with right now, just to get our

house in order, and jump ahead to Order 10, which is the Uniform Pensions Act,

an Act on which, in Committee, I know we have some Members who wish to say a few

words. I would not be surprised if even the Member for St. John's East might

want to say a few words. Perhaps we can get into some orderly debate on that

one, and then straighten out these other items? Perhaps you could ask if that is

agreed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 7.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today, because I believe it is incumbent on me, as a

person who was involved - not involved now, or not receiving any pension from

any segment of the uniform services - but, at one time, I was a member of the

police force and also a member of the St. John's Fire Department.

AN HON. MEMBER: A boxer.

MR. PARSONS: No, I was never that, thank God. I became a

part of the fire department in the early 1950s. I should not be telling that

because I suppose it could be related to my age. Anyway, I did, and it was a

foregone conclusion, then, that your pension was something of a sacred item,

because it was there before Confederation, it was there during the time of

Commission of Government, and it was just brought along, and, as far as I knew,

it was part and parcel of The Terms of Union. Everything went fine as far as the

uniform pensions were concerned, and there were no changes brought forward. In

other words, I suppose, you could call it a sacred cow. It was never touched. In

all the deliberations, all the pay negotiations, pensions were never on the

table for discussion, until some junior members of the force, and, I suppose,

rightly so, Mr. Chairman - I can look back to when I was in my 20s, when

pensions were the last thing on my mind. I wanted some money upfront and I

wanted it right away. I would almost be prepared, at that time, to forfeit any

segment, or all of my pension, just to get some money for that particular time,

which I suppose you would have to say, rightly so, when the need was greatest.

Mr. Chairman, be that as it may, the pension scheme was never on the bargaining

table until it was brought there, I think, I am right in saying, by members of

the Newfoundland Constabulary, last year. They opened up the pension to

scrutiny, and to negotiation, because I think there was an agreement for an

increase in pay, subject to the opening of their pension plan, and they received

a pay increase, subject to that agreement. Mr. Chairman, that is what opened up

the Uniform Pension Plan.

Now, Mr. Chairman, as far as the Act, itself, is concerned,

it serves most of the people well. There is no doubt in my mind at all about

that. The only thing I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that in doing what the police

did, they not only opened it up for the police, but they opened up the pension

plan, again, for negotiation, for all the uniform services, because all the

uniform services are part and parcel of the one unit. I know, when I joined the

police force, the fire department and the police department were under the same

chief and you could transfer from one department to the other, which I did. I

transferred from the fire department to the police and I was there until I

resigned from the police force and went to another job. But it was all part and

parcel of the same overall group.

Mr. Chairman, the old plan, when I joined, was based on 25

years service and 60 per cent of your income based on your last day's work, on

which I stand to be contradicted, but I think perhaps it was the best pension in

North America. For that reason, alone, I felt very strongly that it should never

be opened up again for negotiation. But that is beside the point, now, Mr.

Chairman, it was opened up, and what the Bill says now is that everyone in the

uniform services will have to join the new plan. The only people left out of

that plan would be people with nineteen years service or over.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is not a lot of difficulty with that

to many people in the uniform services, but there is a minority in the uniform

services who disagree, and rightly so. I mean, what they are saying is they came

into the uniform services with the knowledge that they were going to retire

after twenty-five years. Mr. Chairman, in realism, looking at the real life side

of this, there are parts of this Act that really cannot be put in place. What I

am saying is, in particular, with the fire department, where if we are going to

go for thirty-five years, I cannot, for the life of me, see an active

fire-fighter at sixty years of age. I mean, no matter where you are fighting

fires, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how any person - perhaps there is one in 100 -

how a man up to sixty-five years of age can fully participate in the activities

of a fire department. It certainly escapes me and I am sure it escapes all the

rest of the Members of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Chairman, the men are not taking anything away. They say,

okay for the senior men it is not right, and even the men who were there from

day one to the nineteen years, consider it not right. What I say to the

Government is that we should keep it grandfathered. Now, people coming into the

service as of, let us say, the first of January or the first of August, or

whatever, will certainly have to join the new pension program. Mr. Chairman,

leave it optional and there will be a great number of the senior members of the

uniform services who would not stay in the old pension plan because of the

differences in the percentage they have to pay. If you were to stick with the

old pension plan now, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is close to 12 per cent, which

is quite an amount taken out of your cheque,

whereas, if you went with the new

programme, the new pension plan, it would be 7 per cent, which is again a large

difference between the new and the old.

Mr. Chairman, I have been told by prominent people both in

the police force and the fire department, that if this policy was adopted to

grandfather that Bill 7, to grandfather the Act and make it optional for persons

in the uniformed services to choose which one of the plans they wish to follow,

and again I am told that with the exception of perhaps less than a dozen people,

most of the policemen and most of the firemen would opt to stay in the new

pension plan. Mr. Chairman, what I am saying, is that the minority should have

that right, they should have the right of choice to choose which pension plan

they want to stay in, because it has to be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that they

came into the service under this agreement; they came into the service with this

in mind: after twenty-five years, we are due a pension, we are going to leave

here whether forty-five, forty-seven or fifty or whatever. This is what you have

built your life around and, Mr. Chairman it is unfair to change it, it is

unfair, Mr. Chairman.

If this bill goes through as we see it here now, the only

persons who will be eligible to remain with the old pension plan are people with

nineteen years service. I also have to remind the hon. House, that the teachers

had a fifteen year plan; all the teachers, instead of the nineteen years were

subject to the fifteen year freeze, so even in that respect, Mr. Chairman, I

cannot see for the life of me why there was that much of a discrepancy. Perhaps

the teachers were quite satisfied to go along even with the new plan, I did not

hear much of an outcry, but what we are speaking about here is people who came

into the fire department, into the police force and said: okay, after

twenty-five years, we are ready to go. Their families are raised and many of

them are now only starting to live after they have finished with their jobs

because of the restrictions that they had shift wise and whatever, they had very

little family life and this was one of the reasons why they joined those

services in the first place and I think that this should be looked at.

Again, Mr. Chairman, there certainly is a loss in revenue for

each individual who is pensioned on this new plan. The old plan was such that on

the day you left the service; if you were getting $30,000 and your increase was

on the last day before you became pensionable, then that is what your pension

was based on, 60 per cent of your last day's service, but in the new plan, it is

2 per cent per year and to receive that 60 per cent, you would have to go thirty

years and thirty-five years for the 70 per cent which is the maximum amount that

is allowed.

But with the new plan, you have to do thirty years, compared

with the twenty-five years in the old plan, so you have to give a lot to be part

of the new plan. Again, I want to make sure that the House understands what I am

saying. The pension plan itself,

dealing with people overall, is a good plan. The 2 per cent

per year is a good plan, and the Government was right in bringing it in. The

only part of that Bill that is wrong, as far as I can see, Mr. Chairman, is that

nineteen years. I think that nineteen year bit should be taken out and the Act

should be grandfathered. Give the people, Mr. Chairman, a chance to chose their

own destiny because it is fair for a person, when he comes into a job tomorrow,

for the guidelines and the rules to be laid out for him: this is what you have

to do and this is what you will receive, and by the same token those people from

the uniform services, when they came in, be it five years ago or fifteen years

ago, were told: this is what you have, this is your pension act, these are your

hours of work, these are your duties, whatever. Mr. Chairman, I think those

people have a right to chose now. Again, I want to be explicit, and say to the

Government that from all the people I have spoken with there would be no more

than a dozen altogether, because of the monetary implication, that would chose

to stay with the old pension act. I say to the hon. House that, being a

democratic body like we are, and responsible men and women, I think we should

give the uniform services the right for grandfathering. I think in doing so we

will show that we want to make sure that they have faith in the Legislature, and

have faith in the Government who is their employer, whether it was the Liberal

or the Progressive Conservative Government, whichever Government they hired on

under, whatever Minister of Justice was there, well, it does not matter,

whichever one it was. It is not a political thing. It is a moral thing, a moral

right of the people who were employed at that particular time to now have the

right to choose their own destiny.

Mr. Chairman, I think this would be a fine gesture on the

part of Government. I am not sure really how much extra this would cost. I do

not think it would be a great amount because now the percentages have gone way

higher than what they were. I remember when I joined the police force, Mr.

Chairman, you did not pay into your pension at all. It was free. I am not sure

how many years ago they started paying for their pensions but at one time it was

free, perhaps ten or twelve years ago, or fifteen years ago, around there. At

any rate, Mr. Chairman, they do pay now. There are not many people in the police

force, the uniform services, fire department, warders, or whatever, with young

families that could afford this 11 per cent. What I am saying is you would not

have very many people that would opt for staying in the old pension plan.

Mr. Chairman, along those lines I would ask this hon. House

today if they would support an amendment that I propose to make. I want to

present that amendment now. It is on Page 5 and it is Clause 2. All I want to do

is that Paragraph (

r) of Clause 2 be amended by deleting the words, 'more than

nineteen years of.' I have a seconder to my amendment in the hon. Member for

Fogo, and I would ask the page if she would bring the amendment over to Your

Honour

to see if it is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I am having difficulty, with the private conversations going

on in the House, in hearing the hon. Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to adjourn

the debate on Bill No. 7 and go back to Bill No. 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 6.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, because of the way this

amendment is written here, we should move to Clause 13, first, do that change,

and then do the change of Clauses 12 and 13.

Clause 13, Mr. Speaker, is amended by striking out the

cross-reference `11 and 12', and by substituting the cross-reference `and 11',

eliminating 11 and 12 and putting back `and 11'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, Clause 13 as amended, carried.

MR. BAKER: Back to Clause 12 and 13 together, and

renumber them. I move that Clause 13 of the Bill is renumbered as Clause 12, and

Clause 12 is now renumbered as Clause 13.

On motion, Clauses 12 and 13, renumbered, as circulated.

On motion, Clause 14 through to 44, carried.

Motion, that the Committee Report having passed the Bill with

amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 11, Mr. Speaker.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Evidence Act." (Bill No. 4).

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I wish to reiterate my

opposition to this Bill amending the Evidence Act. When I spoke in the debate on

second reading of this Bill I explained the reasons for my objection. Basically

I believe this change has the effect of making worse or exacerbating the power

imbalance between the health care establishment and consumers or patients. I do

not believe that a case has been made by the proponents of the amendments for

giving the special status conferred by this Bill to physicians, other health