May 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI

No. 41

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to the routine business, on behalf of hon.

Members I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today forty Grade X1

students from Holy Trinity Central High School, Norman's Cove, accompanied by

their principal, Mr. Roy Bennett, and teacher Mr. Paul Sheppard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Development I will ask my question of the Premier. As the Premier is probably

aware the economic conditions of the Burin Peninsula are probably the most

devastating they have even been. Recent Statistics Canada figures show that in

the Burin - South Coast area, as is my understanding, unemployment is the

highest it has ever been. One of the significant contributors to that has to be

the state or the desperate condition that the Marystown Shipyard finds itself in

with approximately 400 people now on layoff and ready to go to the Mainland. I

want to ask the Premier what his Government plans to do to deal with this

serious problem that now exists, and when can we expect some action?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government,

together with the Federal Government, is spending some $40 million to build the

Cow Head facility in Marystown to provide for work of a general shipbuilding

nature and work opportunities to take advantage of the opportunities offered by

the building of the Hibernia platform. There is a substantial effort underway in

that regard. The other offices of the Department of Development and the Economic

Recovery Commission is making its effort with respect to Marystown, as it is

with all other parts of the Province, but it is not giving any priority to

Marystown that it is not giving to other parts of the Province where the

unemployment situation is of similar proportions.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of what is

taking place in Cow Head. I was part of the Government which negotiated the deal

with the Federal Government, and I was the Minister of Transportation who

announced it on behalf of that Government. But that is for the future, Mr.

Speaker. What we are talking about is the serious condition that exists there

now and that is what we want action on.

Let me ask the Premier if he is not going to make Marystown a

special case, and I not asking him to do so, but let me say, Mr. Speaker, that

there was $10 million left over for a subsidy program to be spent at the

Marystown Shipyard that your Government took and put into another agreement.

Will the Premier cancel Government's policy not to construct a new ferry for

Fogo Island and immediately proceed so that we can maintain the level of highly

skilled tradespeople in Marystown?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the Government will not

alter its decision with respect to the proposal to build an ice-breaking ferry

at the Marystown Shipyard. On the basis of the assessment that was done at the

time of bringing in the Budget we are quite satisfied that the course that we

followed is the only appropriate course for the Government to follow in the

present financial circumstances. Mr. Speaker, the Government would be very

pleased if we could direct all kinds of shipbuilding work to the Marystown

Shipyard and have 500 or 600 or 700 people working there. Nothing could please

the Government more.

But in order to generate the cash necessary to create such

work opportunities, if that is what we were to do, we would have, Mr. Speaker,

to tax the people to derive the revenue. Well if the tax revenue is not there

because it is needed to maintain the hospital and other public services it

cannot be there for that purpose. So the revenue is simply not there to do

everything that we would like to do as much as we would desire to do that.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Premier the

revenue was there. There was $10 million there left over from a subsidy program

to build vessels at the Marystown Shipyard, and your Government removed it and

put it into another agreement. It was there, Mr. Speaker. And it is still there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the Premier then if his Government

will do what the previous Administration did when it was necessary to maintain

the status quo of the skilled work force at the Marystown Shipyard when we built

supply vessels on speculation? Will this Government now proceed to start

construction of barges for Bull Arm on speculation and eliminate companies from

bringing them from offshore and other parts of the country, put a Newfoundland

policy in place, and have the barges built by Newfoundland workers at the

Marystown Shipyard?

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We have no intention of repeating the

errors of the former administration. The $10 million that the hon. Member talks

about for subsidy for the proposed ship building that FPI did not take up; that

money was used to raise an additional $9 million to go into the Ocean Industries

Agreement with the Federal Government. That is where that money is gone. So, it

is used already, and to hear the hon. Member talk about it in that light is

without merit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the former administration got this Province

some $40 odd million - I have forgotten the total debt of the Marystown

Shipyard, so much so that we are paying about $7 million a year of taxpayers

money to keep the Marystown Shipyard going and to pay the interest on the debt

that has been created.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a limitation on the ability of the

taxpayers of this Province to continue that. We are coming to grips with it now

and trying to handle it in a very responsible way that takes into account the

needs and interests of the people of the Burin Peninsula, but at the same time

is considerate of the limited financial ability of the taxpayers of this

Province. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, go on spending like drunken sailors as the

former administration did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: A good beginning would be to stop acting like

a drunken sailor, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. One of

the effects of health care cuts in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador,

which in many cases involve the total closure of acute care beds and in some

other cases the closure or reduction in lab and x-ray, is to increase the

pressure on regional hospitals - surely the Minister recognizes that. He said,

in fact, on Tuesday, and I quote, 'We have put in place a system where every

single hospital has a role to play, and if you tamper with one you have to have

an impact on the other.' That is the end of the quote. I would like to ask what

plans has the Minister put in place to ensure that the regional hospitals are

able to meet the increased pressure on lab and x-ray?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could best address

that by giving the hon. Member an example in the hospital in Corner Brook. When

the x-ray unit in Deer Lake was closed down we anticipated that there would be

some extra impact on the hospital in Corner Brook. So, Mr. Speaker, what we did

was discuss the whole matter with the hospital there in Corner Brook, and we

discovered that access to the x-ray in Corner Brook was probably the best access

available in the Province. As a matter of fact, even today after Deer Lake has

been closed, if a person wants to get an x-ray in Corner Brook, all he has to do

is walk in. It is a walk in service, no appointment is necessary, Mr. Speaker,

even after all the changes. So that is one particular case where there has been

no problem.

I should say to the hon. Member for Humber East who keeps

interrupting when people are speaking in this House, I do not want to talk about

her manners, that is one topic, but I should tell her that the intent of the

hospital in Corner Brook is to try to get a person who can do both x-ray and lab

work. People are not being trained for that any longer. It used to be a

profession at one time, but there are still quite a few people around who can do

both x-ray and lab, and if such a person can be recruited the intent of the

hospital administration is, indeed, to recruit such a person and still carry on.

But it is just not viable to put two people in Deer Lake.

That is the example that I quoted to the hon. Member, but I

can give illustrations all throughout the Province where we made sure when we

did one thing in one part of the Province, we considered the impact it would

have upon another - a very rational approach, Mr. Speaker, I should say.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rather

disappointed the Minister could not answer the question a bit more directly; it

was a rather simple question. We have heard the Member for Humber East and is he

not aware that the Member for Humber East said the other day that the hospital

in Corner Brook had to lay off eleven staff from their lab and x-ray Department,

is he aware of that? But at the same time, obviously they were faced with

increased work-loads, because of the closure of the Deer Lake clinic.

I want the Minister to confirm, if he will, that in Grand

Falls, at the Grand Falls Hospital or the Central Newfoundland Hospital, five

employees have been lost in the diagnostic services area, one technician has

been laid off at the clinic in Lewisporte. How does the Minister expect the

Central Newfoundland Hospital to be able to cope with all the additional

work-load that it is going to have to face because of other things that have

happened out in the Baie Verte area and in the Springdale area, how does he

expect the Central Newfoundland Hospital to cope?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether there

were five laid off or ten or twenty laid off; these are details which are run by

the Administrator in these institutions. I should tell the hon. Member though,

that when we put our rationalization programme in place, it was something which

was done over a considerable period of time and hon. Members will remember how

they were criticizing us because we were taking so long to pursue, to

investigate and to discuss back and forth, so, all these things were taken into

consideration.

The same questions that the hon. Member is now asking, were

asked by me and asked by my colleagues in the Cabinet before we went ahead with

this, and we have taken into consideration every single possible thing that

could happen as a result of our rationalization. One thing I will tell the hon.

Member, as a result of what we did in Springdale, we were able to move thirty

chronic care patients out of the hospital in Grand Falls and free up twenty-five

or thirty acute care beds which are now available to the people in the

Springdale, Baie Verte and the Grand Falls area, so everything that we have

done, Mr. Speaker, is done - it is the functional approach, where we did not

touch one domino unless we considered the impact which that would have on the

other one; it is a tremendous approach, I am proud of it, Mr. Speaker, I am very

proud of the way it was done and I am proud of the support of my colleagues in

Government who saw the wisdom of what I was doing and backed me up 100 per cent.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Is the

Minister not aware that the Central Newfoundland Hospital has received

complaints of long waits for certain diagnostic services already, at this point

in time, after only a month or so? And when is he going to take his head out of

the sand and acknowledge and recognize that regional hospitals are in fact being

dramatically affected negatively by the health care cuts that he has announced,

and the quality of health care services are on a downward slippery slope in this

Province? When is he going to acknowledge that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I spent four years sitting where

the hon. Member is now sitting and I spent most of my life involved in public

affairs and I can tell the hon. Member that there have always been long waiting

lists for people to get to hospitals in this Province and the reason is not

always because beds are closed. The reason is because the system has not been

organized. We are trying to organize a system which was practically allowed to

go off in a hundred different directions when the previous administration was in

place.

For example, Mr. Speaker, there was a waiting list at the

General Hospital in this city which was caused not by the lack of beds but was

caused by the fact that there were not enough ORs available, there were not

enough Intensive Care units available. We addressed that bottleneck and made

access a lot better.

We have taken out of the system this year 180 acute care beds

which we do not intend to replace. They were beds which were underutilized. And

we are smartening up areas, we are rationalizing it, and I am proud to tell the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador we are doing this. Because it shows that we

are not wasting their money, we are spending it in a very proper manner, and all

the questions the hon. Member asked were asked by me and my colleagues and they

were addressed. Now we recognize that there might be one or two areas where we

have to do some minor fine-tuning and we are prepared to do that if we have to.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the same Minister on the same topic, but as they relate to overall in the

Newfoundland situation. This week we have heard the Member for Humber East who

has brought certain concerns to the Minister and he has basically said there is

not a problem in Corner Brook, in Western Memorial. We have now heard the Member

for Grand Falls who says - in dealing with real people and real situations in

central Newfoundland - that there is a broad number of complaints, a lot of

concerns about the rate of service, how long it takes to get in and get work

done, how long it takes to get test results.

Will the Minister confirm that in excess of twenty-five or

twenty-six lab and x-ray staff have been laid off in the recent round of

layoffs? That in effect, those layoffs have seriously affected the service that

is available to residents of Newfoundland? Will the Minister confirm that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier answer

to a question, I cannot confirm whether it is twenty-five or thirty, it could be

fifty, I cannot confirm that, but I do know this, Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring

the impact of our reorganization on the system and we are finding that there are

no major problems anymore than there were major problems before the system was

organized. Of course, we have the assurance that we are also trying to address

them. There are some lay offs in lab and X-ray, Mr. Speaker, but the hospital in

Melville advertised in yesterday's paper for lab and x-ray technicians, so

throughout the system overall there are still some vacancies. A very clear case

in point is the Corner Brook hospital where you just walk in for an x-ray, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

The Minister keeps saying he is monitoring the situation but

he did not confirm and does not know the actual number of lay offs in the lab

and x-ray departments around this Province, and each time we bring this up, Mr.

Speaker, as the Member for Humber East did the other day, we get a lot of phone

calls, letters, letters to the editor of the paper, criticizing the service we

have in this Province. Will the Minister confirm if he has received complaints

from the Newfoundland Medical Association, or from individual doctors,

complaining about how long it takes to get test results back to the doctors, and

therefore back to the patients? Has he had complaints from those doctors?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall one complaint

from one doctor which came to me personally, or to the Department of Health,

complaining about getting their records back. Now, there might be one or two but

there certainly are no great numbers. I cannot even recall one.

I cannot say the Newfoundland Medical Association is 100 per

cent in agreement with what we are doing, especially as it relates to the MCP

board, but generally speaking I am quite confident that the Newfoundland Medical

Association sees the wisdom of what I am doing. They, like us, would like to see

more money. No one more than I would like to see more money in health but they,

too, live in the real world and recognize that there is a fiscal problem in this

Province. But I am quite confident in saying that the Newfoundland Medical

Association is in agreement with the principle of what we are doing. They might

make a few minor changes but I am not aware of any. The Newfoundland Hospital

Nursing Home Association, which the hon. Member did not ask about, they issued a

press release some time ago saying they accepted the principle of what we were

doing. They had a slight disagreement as to whether or not we had made enough

money available for slippage so I think in true medical terms from a health

perspective what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely right.

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

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

have a question for the Minister of Health. I understand in recent days that the

Minister himself had occasion to visit St. Clare's hospital, and probably met

with some of the administrators in the hospital, and had some tests done himself

while he was at the hospital? Could the Minister confirm this?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I find more

boring than to sit around and listen to someone talking about his complaints,

but if the hon. Member wants me to tell him about the complaints I have I will

tell him about my heart, the pain in my chest, and the pain in my foot, but I

hardly think that would be relevant to the people of the Province and I do not

think the people of the Province would want to know that. If they do I will be

quite pleased to tell them when I have been to the hospital for some tests, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I guess we all on occasion

have to visit the hospitals for pains in our heart, and pains in our chest and

operations some times, which I had. Mr. Speaker, I understand and I know that

the Minister was at the hospital and he had some tests done. I just want to ask

the Minister if he noticed any line ups or undue delays when he did have his

test done? I do not care about what complaints he had.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware - I do not spend

that much time visiting hospitals as a patient. So it is difficult for me to say

whether or not there was a big line up or a small line up. I know I had to go

early in the morning to get my test done, but I feel foolish talking about my

personal complaints. I do not think that is required.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary. I am not overly interested in the Minister's personal complaints.

Certainly if he has any complaints, I certainly wish he will get well as soon as

possible, Mr. Speaker.

But, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know when the Minister

went to St. Clare's in recent days to have some blood work done, as I understand

it, is it true that his Department or his office phoned the administrator of the

hospital to set up an appointment to see that he would not be caught in any

undue delays and line ups, Mr. Speaker?.

MR. SIMMS: Special treatment.

MR. R. AYLWARD: To try and make an appointment so that he

could jump the line, Mr. Speaker, and he certainly could have a walk-in service,

as he said earlier today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question has been asked. The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when patients go to a hospital

they make appointments and they have their work done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: When people go to get a haircut they make

appointments, Mr. Speaker. When people go to see various professionals they make

appointments. I made an appointment, and to do that I had to phone the hospital.

I did not see the point in phoning the barber to make an appointment to go to

the hospital, Mr. Speaker, if there is something out of the ordinary about that.

But I would look forward to telling the hon. Member whether or not I had an

urine analysis done, whether or not I had blood work done, when I sit down I

would invite him after a cup of coffee (inaudible) all other complaints

(inaudible), then he can talk about his complaints and we could see who got the

worse heart and see who got the best blood.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the whole

health care system is just a joke to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. And if

it was not such a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, I might even get a chuckle myself

out of what the Minister is saying. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that

when he visited St. Clare's to get his tests done, whatever they were, and I do

not really care which ones they were, that he jumped the line, Mr. Speaker,

ahead of eleven people who were waiting for up to an hour before he got there,

and he went through to get his tests done. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, he

could also confirm that he was so embarrassed of jumping the eleven people that

he did not come out the same way, he had to go out some other way, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: He phoned the Administrator to get it

done.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe the hon.

Member who has an half an hour to discuss the concerns of this Province is

wasting the time of this House on such petty nonsense. As I pointed out I had

appointments. I went in, I was there on time for my appointments, and I saw the

people who were necessary to see, and I do not see why he wants to continue

getting down in the mud and dragging people (inaudible). But I can tell the hon.

Member, Mr. Speaker, that when the previous Government was in power the only way

you could get admitted into a chronic care facility was if you knew the Minister

of Health or the Premier. The only way you could get your mother into a

hospital, Mr. Speaker, is if you had some one in Cabinet. That day is thankfully

gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a final

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm

now that for anyone in this Province who wishes to have a blood test done or

some lab and x-ray work done that they must do as the Minister did, phone the

administrator of St. Clare's and make an appointment?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: I will confirm for all the people of this

Province, that if they have any work that has to be done by specialists, first

they will go to their GP who would refer them to have whatever tests they want

to have done and then when their tests were prescribed, they would phone the

hospital of their choice and set up an appointment -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no!

MR. DECKER: I would suggest to them, Mr. Speaker, that

they be on time for their appointment and I have absolute confidence in the

health care system of this Province that all these things will be done, that all

of these things will be done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Go in seven o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Maybe the Member for Grand Falls might want

to talk to me about his blood test as opposed to my blood test, which, I am sure

will make an interesting conversation.

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

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

Premier.

The Premier's Minister of Health has been on his feet on

three separate occasions today, telling this House that people can go for blood

work and x-ray work, diagnostic work in hospitals by making an appointment.

That, Mr. Speaker, has never been so and is not so today, unless you are a

Minister.

What the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian has to do,

is, as the Minister said, go to his GP, take the prescribed list from his GP and

go down and sit and wait, pull a number and wait until the number is called;

that was the case today when my colleague went.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I want to ask the Premier is this: Is

the Premier concerned that the Minister of Health, the protector of the health

care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, this week, abused his position, abused

his office by calling up an administrator of a health care institution in this

Province and demanded that that administrator get an appointment for him to have

ordinary diagnostic work done at a lab at St. Clare's Hospital, is the Premier

concerned about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not have time to stand in line.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple things

that one needs to say to address that. First is, that in my experience over the

last twenty or thirty years, it has been frequently common for people, all kinds

of people to make appointments, it is not unusual -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - well, they can shout no, if they want

to. I can say to this House, Mr. Speaker, without hesitation, that fifteen and

twenty years ago, ten years ago, I made appointments to get work done and I know

that from my own personal experience, so for the Member to say, no, is not

correct -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - so, it is not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, it is not

correct. The second thing that I have to say is: to see hon. Members Opposite

display the picayune mentality that we are seeing here this afternoon, in this

kind of an attack because a Minister operating efficiently, working day and

night for the people of this Province, makes an appointment to have some blood

work done at a hospital and to see this kind of picayune mind, spend a half an

hour of the time of this House, in this kind of small-minded, narrow-minded

display, Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why anybody in this Province

who wants to call up for an appointment cannot call up for an appointment; I do

not see why anybody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I do not see why anybody who wants to call

up to have an appointment for any medical work -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The purpose of Question Period, is to solicit information and

there must be a certain atmosphere and a certain level of quiet so that it can

be done. The hon. Members to my right are given the opportunity to ask

supplementaries and I think I have been pretty liberal on supplementaries, but

once the supplementary is asked, then they should afford a Minister the courtesy

of giving the answer. This helps the Chair to decide whether the Minister is

dragging on or not getting to the point and I can ask the Minister to sit down,

but when we get a barrage of supplementaries, it makes it very difficult. I

would ask the Premier to clue up his answer please.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have just another point or

two to add. I do not know what practice different medical practitioners or

hospitals or people generally delivering medical services in this Province

follow with respect to appointments, but if the House wants me to take the

trouble and go through the expense and effort of finding out, I will undertake

to do so.

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

Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier talked

about the Minister of Health working night and day for the people of this

Province. Let me say to the Minister, there were more Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians working night and day in this Province before he became Premier

than are working in this Province today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true!

MR. SIMMS: It is true, don't be so silly.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not concerned

about the actions of his Minister getting preferential treatment at a hospital

for diagnostic work that is not available to any other living, breathing

Newfoundlander and Labradorian - and this will come out. Because whether the

Premier wants to admit it or not, it is a fact. Nobody else can get one. Is the

Minister -

MR. SIMMS: Blood work.

MR. RIDEOUT: For blood work, yes. Is the Premier not

concerned that employees of St. Clare's Hospital had to be called directly by

the administrator of that institution? They had to go through the distress of

refusing their administrator to

schedule an appointment for the Minister because

they told the administrator: that you ought to know, nobody can get an

appointment for blood work. It is come take a number, first come, first serve,

when your number is called. But that those employees were ordered to set an

appointment and to see the Minister of Health of Newfoundland and Labrador. Is

the Premier concerned about that?

MR. SIMMS: No, of course he is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: My privileges are being abused in this House,

and I have a right as a Member of this House to stand on a point of privilege,

Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we saw a short time ago that a Minister of

the Crown in Ontario had to resign for breaching information that a person in

that province had received the services of the hospital system. I, as a private

citizen, as a Member, as a person, had to have some work done in a hospital. My

privileges have been abused today by the hon. Member who stood up and dragged my

personal life through the mud in this Province. And I was not elected, and the

people in the Strait of Belle Isle did not send me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just before the hon. Member - and I want him to get to his

point of privilege - but just before the hon. Minister is permitted to pursue

it, I want to advise hon. Members that Question Period has expired, so that we

do not run into any problems.

I will listen to the hon. Member for a short submission.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I was not sent here to be

dragged through the mud by people with a political agenda. Now, inside these

four walls, hon. Members have the right, they can say things that they would not

say outside this building, and they have legislative immunity, but that does not

give them the right to drag any Member of this House through the mud. Who is to

say what impact this will have on the loan I happen to have with a bank because

I was to see a hospital. They have created -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Who is to say the impact this is going to

have on my family who may or may not know that I had to take advantage of the

services of this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not expect Your Honour to make a

ruling on this at this time. You will probably have to take it under

consideration. The fact of the matter is that no Member, whether he is a

Minister of Health or a backbencher on either side of this House, should be able

to have his personal privileges abused for purely political gains, Mr. Speaker,

and I would like Your Honour to take that under consideration.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect Your Honour would take all of 30

seconds, if I did not stand, to rule that there is no point of privilege because

there is not one. No prima facie case of privilege has been established by the

Minister of Health at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour was in the Chair observing what

took place in this Chamber during Question Period today, and the evidence that

there is no prima facie case of privilege can be no better illustrated than

asking Your Honour to recall the actions of the Minister of Health when this

matter was raised first in the House of Assembly this afternoon. The first

reaction of the Minister was that of a buffoon, Mr. Speaker, laughing and joking

about pains in his chest and blood work here and pain. It was a joke! Is was not

even worthy of sober consideration by the Minister of Health.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health

gets backed into the corner, and it has become clear that the Minister of Health

had afforded to him, by abusing his office, a privilege that no other

Newfoundlander and Labradorian has a right to expect. Then it is a matter of

privilege. And I say it is privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is the privilege of the

people in Baie Verte, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Grand Falls and everywhere else

in Newfoundland and Labrador who have to go in with a prescription from the

doctor, haul down a number and wait until a lab or x-ray person calls the number

so they can go in and get medical service. That is the privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the privilege, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister with the authority of a Minister of the Crown breached on behalf of

every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. And as a result of it, if the Premier had

any integrity he would investigate it and it would be proven correct, and the

Minister, Mr. Speaker, would no longer be a Minister because he is not fit to

occupy the office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to very

briefly respond. I will try not to match the histrionics of my friend opposite

who, I suppose, believes that the louder he shouts the more persuasive his

argument is, and it is not necessarily so.

Mr. Speaker, the point here raised by the Minister of Health

obviously is that one understands when one goes to a hospital that what is being

done in the hospital and so on, the medical procedures that a person goes

through, is something that normally is held very private and confidential. There

have been many cases discussed publicly. There has been a complaint by certain

doctors about information that MCP requires and so on as breach of

confidentiality. Obviously someone working in the hospital has given the Member

for Kilbride, I believe who has raised the question, certain medical

information. He has alluded to blood tests and so on that were done. And then

the Member stood up in the House and started referring to the Minister of Health

who had to get certain procedures done in the hospital a few mornings ago, I

believe, or last week or whenever it was. Mr. Speaker, I believe the precedents

are clear that kind of thing constitutes a breach of confidential and private

information about a Member of the House. And I do not know how the Member could

have raised the issue he wanted to raise without talking about blood tests and

so on, but he obviously should not have. There are precedents exist, Mr.

Speaker, where Members would have to resign, if they disclosed such information.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Your Honour take some

time to consider it. It is a serious question. There is a serious side to the

question. In spite of the histrionics of the Leader of the Opposition who has

one thing going for him, he is good at histrionics.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: To that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to clarify some of the comments that the Government House Leader

made, Mr. Speaker. There was nobody in the administration of that hospital

called me to tell me anything about the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: There was a call came, Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will say it outside the House, Mr.

Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: No problem.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will say it outside the House,

everything -

MR. TOBIN: Is it true?

MR. R. AYLWARD: - everything that I say in this House, as

I have always done, and always will, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the question was: Why did he

get the privilege of skipping eleven other people who were sitting there waiting

to go in? And people who were sitting there waiting to go in were the ones who

were upset and the ones who informed me of what happened, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is going to take some time to look

at the various submissions. But I want to remind hon. Members that a point of

privilege has to do with a Member's parliamentary privileges. And an hon.

Member, and I am not suggesting that was done today, but I want to tell hon.

Members to certainly use a point of privilege with some degree of caution. And

when it is done the hon. Member must point out how it is that their

parliamentary rights have been broken. And in any event the Chair will look at

the submissions made by hon. Members.

But before doing that the Chair would like to welcome to the

House His Excellency Johannes deKlerk, the Ambassador of South Africa to Canada,

and Mrs. deKlerk and Mr. Andre Nel, the Ambassador's attache.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, just before recognizing the Opposition

House Leader, we would like to welcome to the galleries forty-five Grades XI and

XII students from Fatima Central High School in St. Bride's, accompanied by

their teachers Patsy Dohey, Hubert McGrath, and Melvin Critch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise another

question of privilege, I guess it is. And I refer to the comments - and I will

not go at length about the point - but just prior to Your Honour's last ruling

where he took under advisement the last point of privilege raised by the

Minister of Health, the Minister of Health clearly shouted across the House to a

Member over here and said: say it outside the House. Now that is clearly a

threat. And I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's 6th edition, paragraph -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - Paragraph 93, Mr. Speaker:

"It is generally accepted that any threat" - any threat - "or

attempt" - and it goes on to talk about influencing "the vote of, or actions of

a Member, is a breach of privilege." Now, I will not go on and read the rest of

the citation - it is all there for Your Honour - but it says: "It is generally

accepted that any threat" is a breach of privilege.

Now clearly what the Minister of Health said was a threat, by

any definition. And I am simply asking Your Honour if he would review Hansard,

check the Minister's comments, and rule on this particular point of privilege.

That is all I am asking.

MR. SPEAKER: Will do.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what the Member

the many facial expressions and everything else that could be put on an

individual in this House, I suppose that we could be rising on points of

privilege at least fifty times in every session and making the same point that

the Member opposite made. But we do not do it because to do so would be a breach

of privilege of every Member of this House because we would be tying up the time

of this House with points of nonsense. Now the Member opposite who made the

point, and as former Speaker, should know different.

He quotes part of a

section and he did not read the rest of

it where they talk about attempts to influence the vote of - okay? Any attempt

to influence the vote of a Member and so on, it is all in exactly the same

sentence, Mr. Speaker. That is what we do here all the time. We try to influence

the votes of Members of the House. So the intent of that

section obviously was

to point out that you do not threaten to influence the vote of a Member in the

House.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of health - I did not

hear that, but if he did say it he was not trying to influence the vote of any

Member in the House because there is no vote before the House. If he did in fact

say: say it outside the House, then he was challenging a Member - this is done

many times, (Inaudible) challenge the Member opposite to forego his privilege of

Parliamentary immunity and to say the same thing without that immunity. And, Mr.

Speaker, it is a very common thing.

So I would suggest to you that the

section quoted by the

Opposition House Leader simply referred to threats that would tend or would be

geared to influencing the vote of Members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule on both.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is on an entirely

different matter, arising out of - I think, I hope, I believe - some

misunderstanding at the estimates committee meetings, particularly and

specifically the Social Estimates Committee. I would like to have the Government

House Leader's views on it, and I would like Your Honour to perhaps clear it up.

And maybe even the Chairman of the Social Policy Committee could respond to it.

I am not quite certain because I am getting the information second-hand. But I

understand that the Chairman of the Committee and the Government Members as I

understand it, believe and understand, that the Committee has fifteen hours to

deal with its deliberations. I understand the Chairman has said that at a

Committee meeting. Now, if that is accurate I would like him to tell me if it is

accurate, if that is his understanding. Or if I am misunderstanding what was

said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) days.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, if it is days. You see, the point is

Members on this side understood the Chairman to say fifteen hours, so I want to

clear it up and make sure that it is fifteen sitting days that Members on the

Estimates Committees have.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what happens is, as the Members

opposite know, there are three hours allocated to each Department so if the

Committee is examining five Departments then fifteen hours is credited towards

debate on the Budget, and if it is examining only four there is only twelve

hours, so the fifteen hours then does not come into play anyway, so three hours

are allocated from that Committee for each Department whose estimates were

examined and that total amount then comes out of the Budget debate hours, the

seventy-five hours allocated by the House. Now, that is complicated by the fact

that we have a

schedule drawn up and we spend an evening, sometimes starting at

7 o'clock and going to 10:00, sometimes it extends well beyond 10:00 o'clock at

night, so there is no problem with that at all. We have a

schedule set up and if

we have that

schedule set up and a Department, let us say Development is

scheduled for today and then tomorrow Fisheries is scheduled, because of the

schedule setup we cannot then do Development again tomorrow, we have to do the

Fisheries, and after we get the

schedule finished then we can fit in anything

else that is left over. There is no problem with that. There is no problem with

extending beyond 10:00 o'clock if there is any particular reason to do so. There

is really no problem with that, but we have a

schedule done up so let us try to

get in the meetings in all the Departments.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just to clarify it, Mr. Speaker, that is not

the point. I agree with everything the Government House Leader said and that is

exactly my understanding, but my understanding, secondhand mind you, was that

some Members of the Committee on the Government side were of the view that they

had fifteen hours to deal with the Departments referred to them, and that is not

accurate. They can have 115 hours if they wish, but the maximum is fifteen

sitting days. Okay, that is cleared up.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, before moving on to the next item of

business I would also like to welcome to the gallery on behalf of hon. Members

Mr. Gary Brenton, President of the Marystown Shipyard union and Mr. Thomas Lamb

the Vice-President of the same union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I wish to present today, Mr. Speaker, the

Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunals Fourth Annual Report. This is for 1990.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled,"

An Act Respecting The Office

Of The High Sheriff Of Newfoundland."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the following resolution:

WHEREAS the fishermen of Labrador depend solely on

unemployment insurance benefits to meet their basic needs from November to May

of each year, and

WHEREAS ice conditions have been documented to be the worst

in recent memory along the Labrador Coast this year, and

WHEREAS on May 15, 828 fishermen will be without any income

for four to six weeks,

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly demand that the

Federal Government extend the unemployment insurance benefits for six weeks this

year and change their program to stop this discriminatory action against the

fishermen of Labrador.

Petitions

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

West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a

petition on behalf of 5,514 people from the Burin Peninsula. The prayer of the

petition, Mr. Speaker, is to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

Legislative Session convened - I am sure that meets with the Minister's

approval.

Whereas prospects for employment at the Marystown Shipyard appear

bleak in 1991;

whereas all employment opportunities including the immediate

start-up of the Fogo Island Ferry to help bridge the gap before the start of the

Hibernia project;

whereas this would stop the exodus of the skilled workforce

from the Burin Peninsula to mainland Canada;

whereas all of these workers and

more will be needed when the Hibernia project starts, the petition of the

undersigned residents of the Burin Peninsula request the Provincial Government

to immediately start construction of the Fogo Island ferry and set up a local

preference hiring procedure for all work associated with the expansion of the

Cow Head facility, and furthermore, all new employment initiatives for Marystown

Shipyard be pursued vigorously by the Provincial Government with the intent

being to keep our skilled workforce in Newfoundland. As I said, Mr. Speaker,

that petition has been signed by 5,514 people who are extremely concerned about

their future and about the future of their families.

At present, in the Marystown Shipyard there are approximately

300 people on lay off. Three hundred workers of the Marystown Shipyard, Mr.

Speaker, will be forced this year to leave and to move to mainland Canada to

secure employment. I sincerely hope that concern would cause the Minister and

the Government at least a conscious renewal.

Mr. Speaker, there have been more people who left Marystown

and the Burin Peninsula in the past couple of years than probably left in the

last 20. This year Marystown is planning her come home year. I spoke to one of

the fellows the other night, a former employee who was in Toronto and there are

so many. I spoke to the mother of this young man, and there are so many of them

from Marystown working in the same industry that they cannot all get off at the

same time for come home year. That is the type of exodus that has taken place in

this Province.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Government has a responsibility

to the work force in the Marystown Shipyard to do something in order to keep

these people home. There are lots of opportunities, lots of avenues. This

Government has not made a conscious effort to do things for the Marystown

Shipyard. It is all great, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier or the Minister of

Development to stand in this House and talk about the Cow Head expansion. I can

talk about the Cow Head expansion, we can all, Mr. Speaker. We can talk about

the Cow Head facility that was put there years ago, Mr. Speaker, but what is

going to happen in the Hibernia development for the Marystown Shipyard in a

years time does not put bread on the table of the work force in the Burin

Peninsula who depend on the Marystown Shipyard today, does not put bread on the

table, Mr. Speaker. And all the debt charges and the loans and what this

previous terrible government did, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said to tax the

people of this Province to build vessels at Marystown. We did it because it was

the right thing to do. That is why it was done, because it was the right thing

to do. I see my colleague for Mount Pearl, one of the strongest supporters the

Marystown Shipyard ever had, and he spoke in the debate the other day and made

the same pleas to Governments. Why this Government cannot start the immediate

construction of barges, for example, for Bull Arm; why they cannot bring in some

sort of a local preference policy where Newfoundlanders will get the opportunity

to work on the Hibernia project such as construction of barges instead of having

them towed from overseas. That is what has to stop in this Province. The

Government can do it, Mr. Speaker, if they want to do it. If the Government

wants to do it, it can be done. It is as simple as like the Premier said about

the teachers pension, as simple as the stroke of a pen. If the Government wants

to bring in that legislation to have them built in Newfoundland, and I can

assure him of immediate passage, we on this side of the House, and I am sure my

friend from St. John's South will not hang up that type of legislation or any

other type of policy.

And in terms of a ferry for Fogo I want to say that when we

left Government there were two sets of plans, because I happened to be the

Minister of Transportation, for the construction of two ferries. I challenge

anyone to say otherwise, and, Mr. Speaker, it would have been signed after the

defeat of this Government because it was prepared, except that the Premier

asked, and I am sure the Premier will acknowledge, that he asked to have no new

plans, tenders, or agreements signed, and that there were two sets of plans.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to clue up?

There were two sets of plans, Mr. Speaker, for the ferries.

It was announced in last year's Budget, and I would ask the Government if they

would bring it in because this is how important it is. I want everybody to

listen. There are 300 people who are going to be forced to the Mainland this

year. Three hundred employees of the Marystown Shipyard will move with their

families, Mr. Speaker, or they will leave their wives and children back home

while they go away to try and secure enough work to qualify for UIC. It is

serious, it is the closedown basically of a main industry, and the Government

can solve it. In the past year had it not been for the Federal Government

contracts that they won by tender, they were not given to them, that they won by

tender, the Marystown Shipyard would have been closed. And they won it by

tender. And there is a man now, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke to him, who worked

twenty-four and a half years in the Marystown and is now home laid off. That is

how serious the shipbuilding industry has gotten in Marystown, and this

Government who owns the Marystown Shipyard has the responsibility for the

Marystown Shipyard and if they so desire they can solve the problems at the

Shipyard.

In conclusion let me say I want to ask the Minister of

Development to consider the plight of these 300 people and their families who

will be forced to Mainland Canada. Mr. Speaker, let us keep the Newfoundlanders

that we have home. It is great to make promises to bring every mother's son home

but it is another thing to drive every mother's son away, so I ask the Premier

or the Minister of Development, who I am sure will stand and speak to the

petition, if they will do what needs to be done, start the immediate

construction of the ferry for Fogo Island, initiate a new program for the

construction of barges, and thirdly, and more importantly at present, bring in a

local preference policy for the area where the construction of the Cow Head

facility is taking place. People are desperate for employment and if this

Government tells the companies to have a local preference policy for people from

the area then at least the gap will be bridged to some extent.

I thank my colleagues for giving me leave to present this

petition and I sincerely hope that the three issues that I mentioned will be

addressed immediately, namely, local preference for the area of the Cow Head

expansion, a ferry for Fogo, and the immediate start of barges on speculation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the petition so ably

presented by my colleague, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. I support

the petition of the hon. Member because I am fully aware of the importance of

the shipbuilding industry to the Province of Newfoundland, and particularly to

the Burin Peninsula area. We have managed, with a great struggle, Mr. Speaker,

over the last number of years to build and maintain a shipyard with a skilled

and dedicated workforce in Marystown and we are in danger of that workforce

being seeped away, lost, skills being lost and going to other provinces. We have

an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that these skills are kept in this

Province and that the shipyard is built and maintained as a viable operation.

Shipbuilding, Mr. Speaker, is a very complex business and

involves all levels of Government required to support that industry. There are a

number of shipyards in this country which always seem to be in certain economic

trouble and difficulty, and that I suppose, Mr. Speaker, is partly because the

shipbuilding industry worldwide is an industry which governments recognize as

one that requires Government support and requires a co-ordinated effort. In

other countries of the world, Mr. Speaker, governments institute policies that

ensure that they have a viable shipbuilding industry, whether it be in Korea, in

Norway, In Japan, or in the United States, by adopting policies that ensure that

much of the shipping in their countries is build within their countries. The

United States has very strong policies in that regard but the Canadian

Government has very little. There is, Mr. Speaker, a co-ordinated effort by a

council of shipbuilding unions which has a number of policy proposals for

various levels of government to adopt which would support the shipbuilding

industry. It is not enough for this Government to say that we are spending $7

million a year, we have spent $40 million, or any particular amount, as being an

excuse to say that we can now abandon our obligations to Marystown Shipyard and

that we can forget about the possibility of adopting a co-ordinated effort, not

only within this Provinces, but with other provinces and with the Federal

Government, and insist that the Federal Government do what it can do to adopt

international treaties. For example, there is an internationl treaty concerning

the carriage of goods by sea from importing and exporting nations that is known

as the 40/20 policy of the carriage of goods for international trade. That is

something that the Federal Government would have to adopt and this Province

should be there insisting that they do it to protect the shipbuilding industry

in this part of Newfoundland. There needs to be a co-ordinated effort, Mr.

Speaker. I am not suggesting that the approach suggested here is one that should

be kept. We should not have an ad hoc approach, we should have a co-ordinated

long-term approach but the need in this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, is

right now, and this shipyard ought to be helped by this Government and to

maintain this workforce until these other programs can be put in place.

I want to speak briefly about the Cow Head matter that my

colleague has spoken of. That is something that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, when

we have contractors bringing in non-union labour, not just individuals from

other provinces like Nova Scotia, but bringing in non-union labour to this

Province and putting our people out of work who would otherwise receive that

work. Mr. Speaker, something ought to be done to curtail that and ensure that

our people have preference for these jobs if there are people here to undertake

this work. That could be done, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily by having a

Newfoundland preference policy, but by adopting a policy that would ensure that

the contracts that were undertaken in Cow Head were done by union labour at

union rates, the unions could then see to the matter of hiring halls or whatever

had to be done. This can be done, Mr. Speaker, despite other agreements that

might be placed and despite mobility requirements of the Canadian Constitution.

But it requires some action by this Government, Mr. Speaker, and I urge this

Government to take that action to preserve work in the Burin Peninsula for

employees of the Marystown Shipyard and also for the workers who would work on

the Cow Head project. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Tourism.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for

bringing this petition forward to the House today. And I too, Mr. Speaker, as

the Minister charged with the responsibility for managing the daily day to day

affairs of the Marystown Shipyard, can tell the hon. Member that I too am quite

concerned, deeply concerned about what is happening at that yard.

MR. TOBIN: Tell the truth.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is and

everybody should be very clear on this, that if this yard were in the private

sector, had to operate in the competitive environment of the real private

sector, nine chances to ten that yard would have been closed a long time ago. So

let us be very clear about that. Let us be very clear about what we are talking

about, and I agree -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I agree with my hon. friend for St. John's

East who perhaps has made the most valuable point in this debate because what my

friend for Burin - Placentia West has said basically was really rhetorical and

he has not, in the two years that I have been here with responsibility for

Marystown Shipyard, he has only asked one question before in that two years. So

I can understand where he is coming from.

But just to respond -

MR. TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: If the Minister of Development is going to

make a statement in this House it should be factual. That is not true what the

Minister said. There have been many questions asked. Now the Minister is never

here, he is gallivanting around. For example, he said, I asked two questions.

Let me tell the Minister that today I asked three questions. He was not here

again, Mr. Speaker. As usual he is late or not here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Marystown Shipyard is (inaudible) gone.

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

Let me point out to both hon. Members that there is no point

of order. And secondly, hon. Members know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am asking hon. Members to listen to the

ruling because I do not want to make the same ruling five minutes hence or two

minutes hence. Every hon. Member knows that when they are speaking to a petition

they have to speak to the signatures, to the material allegations in the

petition, and not engage in extraneous matters but keep themselves to the

material allegations of the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. Member.

He says he asked three questions plus the two that I said, so he has asked five

questions. I apologize, it is five questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Now there were three particular -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - three particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I ask the hon. Minister to please abide by the ruling and to

speak to the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again! Wrong again!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there were three issues that were

raised and the hon. Member for St. John's East perhaps raised the most

pertinent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Canadian - you do not want to hear from the

Minister responsible for the Shipyard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Thank you. The hon. Member for St. John's East

makes the most pertinent point, and the most pertinent point is, Mr. Speaker,

the Canadian ship building policy in this country. It is kind of a perverted

policy because it really goes against any incentive or inducement to create work

in our yards in this nation. The hon. Member knows that full well, and the

Member for St. John's East perhaps articulated it best. He will know that

vessels over 100 feet for example can come in completed into Canadian waters,

completely duty free and tariff free and no additional taxes.

But the components that we bring in from Europe and other

places are heavily burdened with taxes. These components go into the

construction of these ships and cause increased costs. So the hon. Member for

Burin - Placentia West perhaps should be on his feet attacking the current

Federal Conservative Government which allowed this policy to remain in place

against the wishes of this province and other provinces in the country. So I

commend the Member for St. John's East who raises perhaps the most important

point, that in this very competitive industry it is very difficult to compete

against our own Government that has a kind of perverted policy in place which

goes against inducing that kind of work.

Now the Member for Burin - Placentia West asked specific

questions. One was dealing with local preference which I would like to examine

with him for a minute, and the other one deals with building barges on

speculation. Let me take the latter one first.

MR. TOBIN: And the ferry, and the ferry!

MR. FUREY: And the Fogo Island ferry. Let me take the

ferry first. I deeply regret that we had to defer that ferry because I

recognized the importance of the employment that it would have put in place down

there. And I saw it as a bridge toward the Hibernia development, while Cow Head

is being constructed and while that employment is under way. Currently at the

Yard there are 331 people working. Some people will argue that the core work

force is 600. I would not. I would argue that the core work force is 400 to 450.

It peaks up at 600, and we can all play games with numbers but let's get to the

facts of the matter.

The Fogo Island ferry is deferred for a year. I regret that

deeply. But we cannot have everything. We have to defer certain things. Now, if

I built the ferry you would be up saying: well, you could have had another fifty

hospital beds, or another twenty nurses, or another sixty social workers, or

whatever the case is. Government has to look at the bigger picture, has to

examine what money is on the table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister's time is up.

MR. FUREY: By leave, Mr. Speaker? So I can address your

issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FUREY: Government has to deal with that, Mr. Speaker,

and I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I gave the Member a couple of minutes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I gave the Member a couple of minutes. So, Mr.

Speaker, Government regrets that. We wish that we did have that money, we wish

that we could construct that ferry, we recognize the benefits that it would have

on the channel to Fogo, and we certainly recognize the economic and employment

benefits for the Yard.

The Member asked about barges. Mr. Speaker, our history at

the Yard on speculation has not been a good one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, it has not been a good one, Mr. Speaker,

and just look at the record of the six mid-distance fleets. We built those on

speculation and look at them tied up now, look at the costs and the interest

that we are paying on that. And the capital cost to construct it and the debt

that was piled up on that. Along with the offshore supply vessels which were

converted to Canadian Coast Guard vessels. These things all cost money to build.

They were built on speculation. Then we go out into the marketplace and try to

sell or divest ourselves of these. We are currently in the midst of a major

divestiture programme through the Department of Fisheries to try to off-load the

debt of the mid-distance fleet.

So I am not one who likes to engage in speculation and that

is what they are asking us to do, to speculate that we can build and put them

out there for sale and stack up the debt.

The hon. Member knows that the debt currently is well over

$36 million, our interest payments alone are $4 million a year; we have to pick

up the additional operating costs, it was $ 3 million last year plus the $4

million in interest for a total of $7.6 million, that is a lot of debt to add to

the cumulative debt of the yard. I am not in the business of adding to that debt

and I am certainly not going to speculate to add to that debt.

The final thing he asked was local preference policy - with

Members' indulgence - He said: In local preference policy, why do we not use the

fund from the offshore development fund which is currently constructing the Cow

Head facility which will put us in a position to compete for the hundreds of

millions of dollars of work at the Hibernia site.

He asks, why do we not apply that local preference policy; I

would tell him that whenever we set about building something where we have total

control of the capital dollars for the Province, and that yard builds, that yard

is given significant opportunities to build these vessels for the Province. When

we are tied into a Federal-Provincial arrangement, as we are through the

Offshore Development Fund, where Ottawa is paying 75 per cent and Newfoundland

is paying 25 per cent, I would love, dearly love to apply a Provincial policy

but under those rules and regulations, because the nation is putting up 75 per

cent of the cost of the $40 million, we cannot tie into the local preference

policy. I regret that, I wish that we could, it is my deepest wish that we could

tie into a local preference where Ottawa would waive all of the rules and

regulations tied into the Offshore Development Fund, turn it into a hundred per

cent provincial fund and let us deal with the tenders and contracts. I would

dearly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Well, it depends on how much interruption

there is.

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

MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Speaker -

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

The Chair cannot entertain the kind of interruptions that are

going on. I will ask the Minister please, to clue up.

MR. FUREY: I can tell the hon. Member that the way the

regulations are, under the previous Government which he supported and under the

Government which we lead, those regulations are the same. When it is a joint

Federal-Provincial arrangement as this is, 75 per cent of the nation's taxes are

put into it in the form of the money and 25 per cent from the Province; that 100

per cent component arranged in that agreement ties our hands on local

preference. I wish there was some way around it but there is no way around it.

With respect to the Member for St. John's East, he asked

about local contracts on the Cow Head facility. We are doing everything in our

power to ensure - I met with the Municipal Council on it, I have met with the

unions on it, the unions have met with the Premier on it; I have talked to the

people at the Shipyard and local people, wherever we can we are doing our best

to induce local employment. We cannot dictate, we can only do our best to induce

it and to tell them that it would be this Government's priority to have local

people in the Burin Peninsula area, unionized and non-unionized, get the work on

those projects and I think most people would agree with that.

So far, to date, if you want a quick review of what is

happening at Cow Head, I can give you a quick update. The site development

contract for $1.7 is called and that is well underway; the foundation concrete

is called for $1.1 million, that is underway; the main complex envelope for $5.7

million is underway, the five crane supply for $1.6 million is underway; the

paint-haul equipment is now being reviewed and should be awarded very, very

soon.

So, what is happening down there, we are very happy with. The

fact that it is a Federal-Provincial agreement, Mr. Speaker, ties our hands on

the local preference, so that answers the local preference. On barges; we are

not prepared to speculate with taxpayers money because of our experience and the

previous Government's experience in the past with offshore supply vessels and

the middle distance fleet and others.

The Fogo Island ferry, we regret that, that is deferred, it

is my fond hope that we can do that as soon as money becomes available, but I

tell the hon. Member to be careful. This yard is carrying heavy debts, it is

very difficult in the competitive environment that the Member for St. John's

East so rightly points out, it is a very competitive environment. Ship building

across this country, as he knows, is in trouble basically, and it stems back to

the Federal Government of which he is a Member, their policy on ship building.

It really, really does pervert the system when it costs us a lot of money to do

that. I think, Mr. Speaker, that basically deals with those three or four

issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good half hour speech there, Chuck.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if Members

opposite will give me leave to speak to the petition since the Member for St.

John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. SIMMS: A point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we just let the Minister of

Development, who started speaking to a petition -

AN HON. MEMBER: We know that.

MR. SIMMS: Just a second now. The Member for Burin got

two extra minutes. The Minister started at 3:08 and finished at 3:20, he spoke

for twelve minutes. Now the Member for Grand Bank, who is one of the Members who

represents the Burin Peninsula, would like to have a few minutes to say a few

words on behalf of the petition.

Now I say to the Government House Leader there are other ways

to do it. If he does not want to be co-operative, that is fine, but surely he

could reconsider that, an extra few minutes.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Our rules

say that there is a presenter, a supporting speaker and a speaker from the

opposite side, and that has been complied with so far. Mr. Speaker, that is the

reason we said no leave. I would also suggest to Members opposite perhaps the

Member for Fogo would also like to speak on this petition seeing that it

involves the Fogo Island ferry and so on, and this can go on and on and on. Mr.

Speaker, we feel that there has been enough discussion.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to address the point of order. I want to point out to

hon. Members on both sides of the House that because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Many times when some Member is speaking

somebody will point out and say, `Time, time, Mr. Speaker.' I do not think that

does anything to enhance the quality of debate whether it is Question Period or

presenting petitions. The Chair is following the time. When the Chair

recognizes, one, that the time is up in a petition, the Chair will call the time

on both sides equally. I have a stop clock there and when the time is called I

will call it equally on both sides as I am supposed to do. What is very

important though is when an hon. Member is given leave on either side, the hon.

Member should not abuse that leave. That is done with the courtesy of the House.

And hon. Members must realize that when leave is given, it is given with the

courtesy of the House and hon. Members should exercise that right with great

care and not carry on and on and on. Again, hon. Members ought to know that when

consent is given hon. Members should not be shouting out, `Time, Mr. Speaker.'

It is not in the hands of Mr. Speaker then. The House has given the time. Now

hon. Members can withdraw that consent, but please do not look at the Chair and

say,`Time', because the Chair does not have the authority then to give the time.

We are not on time then, we are then counting on the courtesy of hon. Members.

After having said that, obviously there is no point of order.

It was a point of inquiry and the inquiry was not granted.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of twenty-five people; twenty-four from the town of Garnish

and one from the town of Frenchman's Cove in the district of Grand Bank. I want

to read the prayer of the petition:

Whereas prospects for employment at

Marystown Shipyard Limited appear bleak for 1991 and

whereas all employment

opportunities including the immediate start up of the Fogo Island ferry would

help bridge the gap until the start of the Hibernia project,

whereas this would

stop the exodus of the skilled work force from Burin Peninsula to the Mainland,

and

whereas all these workers and more will be needed when the Hibernia project

starts; we the undersigned petition the Provincial Government to immediately

start construction of the Fogo Island ferry and set up a local preference hiring

procedure for all work associated with the expansion of the Cow Head facility;

and furthermore, all new employment initiatives for Marystown Shipyard be

pursued vigorously by the Provincial Government with the intent being to keep

our skilled work force in Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to be able to

present this petition on behalf of those people from my district. And in looking

at the names of those who signed it, Mr. Speaker, I believe that just about all

of them - the greatest number of them - are or were employed at the Marystown

Shipyard, and I begin in support of the petition by saying that the Marystown

Shipyard employs people from all over the Burin Peninsula. It employs people

from the district of Burin - Placentia West, from the district of Grand Bank,

and from the district of Fortune - Hermitage, so there are three districts

really that we see people employed from. It is very, very, sad to see what has

happened to the Marystown Shipyard during the past two years in particular, Mr.

Speaker, as the Member for Burin - Placentia West has alluded to. It is too bad

the Premier has left because when he responded to questions by the Member for

Burin - Placentia West earlier today he said that his Government was not going

to continue with the errors made by the previous administration. I want to go on

record as saying if they were errors that the Government which I was a Member of

made in dealing with the Marystown Shipyard then I only hope that I can be back

in Government again after the next election so that I can make a few more

errors, because the Government of this Province has a responsibility to use

taxpayer's money, on occassions and on times to create employment. Do you know

of any Government in the Western World today that does not have employment

generation programs? I know the Government that has the smallest and the least

employment generation programs, Mr. Speaker, and that is the one opposite. Every

Government that I know of has employment generation programs. Now, the Marystown

Shipyard has a long-term - I do not know when it was build, I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Back in the 60s.

MR. MATTHEWS: I know it was the 60s but I was wondering

what year specifically.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1967.

MR. MATTHEWS: Back in 1967, built by a Liberal

administration, and supported by two different PC administrations, well by three

basically, and now it looks like the Administration that is supporting it least,

and is probably quite willing to let it go, is the now Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is very, very regretable, particularly when

you have a project such as the Hibernia project which everyone has looked

forward to for years. I know in our area of the Province, Mr. Speaker, we have

looked forward to it for years. We could not wait to reap the benefits of the

Hibernia project and now we have a Government who is willing to let the skilled

workforce leave our Province to go to the Mainland when they could have build

the Fogo ferry. As I said before, it was a matter of Government priority. They

could have build the Fogo ferry.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: Listen to the wizard over there, Mr.

Speaker, the financial wizard. Two Liberal administrations have had financial

wizards. One was Valdmanis and the other I do not need to mention, Mr. Speaker.

He makes himself quite noticeable. They have had two financial wizards,

Valdmanis and the present Minister of Finance. Now, I want to say to the

Minister that they could have built the Fogo ferry. They could have created

employment at the Marystown Shipyard while providing a much needed improved

service for Fogo Island. They were not doing something that is not needed in

this Province. They would have done two things by building the Fogo ferry,

created employment opportunities and kept the workforce in this Province, and

they would have provided a ferry which is badly needed for the Fogo Island run,

so they were not doing something that was unnecessary. They talk about building

boats on spec and other things but this was not on spec. The Fogo Island ferry

is a much needed service for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who deserve a

better service. They could have taken the money to build that. They could have

given less to the Economic Recovery Commission, I say to the Minister of

Finance, and they would have employed people who are skilled, they would have

kept them in an industry that is going to hopefully get better, but instead of

that they gave it to the Economic Recovery Commission, and if the Economic

Recovery Commission can create the same number of jobs, with the same amount of

money, I say to the Minister of Finance, I will be the most pleased person in

Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope it happens but I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, of

supporting the petition and call upon the Government to reconsider. There is

still a lot of money that is unused that has been given to the Economic Recovery

Commission, reconsider taking back a sufficient amount of money from the

Economic Recovery Commission, and go forward and build the Fogo Island ferry and

create jobs at the Marystown Shipyard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the

petition presented by my colleague on behalf of the twenty-five members from his

constituency of Frenchman's Cove and Garnish. It is too bad the Minister of

Development is not here, Mr. Speaker, because what we saw this afternoon from

the Minister of Development was nothing short of a charade. The Minister does

not know where the shipyard is. He has only been there on one occasion. We might

as well talk about it. What has taken place since Government changed is a

Government with a lack of conscience for Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly

rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The first thing that happened when they took

office, Mr. Speaker, was they cancelled the signing of the two ferries. That was

the first thing they did. The second thing they did was with the shrimp trawler.

The shrimp trawler that FPI wanted build in Marystown with a subsidy for $21

million in place, with $10 million left, of which the Federal Government said

yes to for their portion, and this Premier and this Government would not give

them the contract, Mr. Speaker, unless they were prepared to tear up their

collective agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Member for

Placentia that my friends from the Shipyard union take strong exceptions to that

comment, they are men enough to make their own decisions and did not need any

advice or guidance from me on what to do nor did they request it, Mr. Speaker,

nor did I give it. I can tell the Minister, and the Shipyard union knows that.

And I do not want any buffoonery, Mr. Speaker, from the Member for Placentia. We

want the truth in this debate. This Government asked the union to destroy, to

tear up their collective agreement. That is what they did to the union at the

time they were negotiating a contract, if they wanted to get a ferry service, if

they wanted to get a shrimp trawler. But I venture to bet and everyone else that

this Government never had any intentions of constructing the shrimp trawler in

Marystown, never, never, never, Mr. Speaker, because they have no commitment to

the Marystown Shipyard. That is the truth of what took place. They wanted union

workers and their families and everyone else, now they are throwing them into

another wage freeze for the next year, and giving them nothing to work with

besides. And they were not finished then, they cancelled everything that was

there. They came out and they announced one ferry instead of the two ferries

that were to be constructed. And did they stop then? No, Mr. Speaker, they drove

another 200 to the Mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member for St. John's South he

will never get into the Cabinet that way. There are more people from Marystown

Shipyard employed on the Mainland today than ever there were before in our

history. We negotiated $21 million, a subsidy program, myself and the Member for

Grand Bank who were in B.C. at the time, when the former Minister of Fisheries,

now the Leader of the Opposition, put in place the funding in Ottawa, cost

shared 50/50, $21 million. This Government, Mr. Speaker, robbed $10 million and

put it into another agreement with Ottawa and put it all over the Province in

areas where they do not know what salt water looks like. That is what happened

to the $10 million. That was not negotiated for an ocean industries agreement

throughout the Province. It was negotiated for one reason and one reason only,

and that was to subsidize the construction of vessels at the Marystown Shipyard,

and this crowd over here, Mr. Speaker, stole the money belonging to the work

force at the Marystown Shipyard and put it in other areas of the Province. That

is what happened. And the truth has to be told.

And I will tell you something else that it is not right, it

is wrong and there is nobody, Mr. Speaker, with common decency would let it

happen except this crowd. The money was for the workers of the Marystown

Shipyard. It was their money, negotiated, signed, sealed and delivered between

Head expansion. Where is the money? Where is the $10 million? $5 million of

which was Provincial money for to construct vessels. Where is it? Let the

President of Treasury Board get up and tell me where it is. And it is not in the

Marystown Shipyard vote. Mr. Speaker, if it was there there would be no problem

with the ferry for Fogo Island, because the money was in place if they wanted to

divert it from trawlers and put it into vessel construction. The money was in

place. But they were not satisfied with that.

MR. MURPHY: There should be more than that. (Inaudible)

wasted in Mount Pearl.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, listen now! Listen to the buffoon from St.

John's South. Well let us talk about the Economic Recovery Commission, and Doug

House that got $44 million this year to do what? Nothing. Except to look after

the crowd who campaigned for the Liberals in the last election, like Fraser Lush

and a bunch of them. What about the king on the 8th floor, Mr. Speaker,

$100,000? What about that, money for the political patronage.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and what do they have up

there now? They got security guards in the front entrance. They got them inside,

every time you look out through the window nothing but mounties and policemen

looking after the Premier paid for by the tax dollars, -

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

MR. TOBIN: - while the people from Marystown and the

Burin Peninsula have to go to the Mainland. That is what is taking place in this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Policemen everywhere and the people from

Marystown going to the Mainland for work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to

again have the opportunity to speak on Bill 14, which is

an Act to amend the

Tobacco Tax Act.

MR. EFFORD: Talking about that again?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, we are going to talk about that again,

that bill that is going to collect an additional $8.5 million -

MR. EFFORD: What is wrong with that?

MR. A. SNOW: - from the people of this Province. Now I

can understand why this administration or any administration needs a revenue to

operate and deliver services in this Province. And while previous times I have

been on my feet speaking about this bill I have talked about the need for an

education fund of some sort to educate people who are smoking, being a former

smoker I feel that people should be educated about the dangers of smoking. But

anyway, that is not the reason why I am speaking today.

Again I am rising to discuss taxation in border communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The taxation in border communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Northern border communities.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, northern border communities. Because of

the different tax systems in place in the different provinces, specifically I

mentioned the Provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. As you are very

well aware there is a recognized difference in the tax structure in gasoline. We

discussed that last week. And today we are discussing a bill that is going to

change the tobacco tax. There is also a recognition in the tobacco tax of the

border situation in Western Labrador. There is a rebate system in place of

rebating the retailers a certain amount per carton, per cigarette.

The Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister responsible for

Treasury Board suggested, I believe, that they are going to review all the tax

structures in the White Paper on Taxation and it is going to be resolved, and

the complete tax structure in this Province is being looked at. I would

specifically ask the Minister of Finance - if he could just pay attention for

one minute, so he could listen to my question - what I am suggesting to him is

that prior to the implementation of this new tax system in this Province, I

would ask - and stress - that he would put in place from the border communities

representation on some sort of a task force from the border communities

themselves. The Newfoundland - Labrador, specifically - border communities.

Now I say that because I do not want to get bogged down with

the bureaucrats from St. John's who happen to live in St. John's Centre and are

only going to use that example. I want them to have input from Western and

Southern Labrador. That is all I specifically ask, is that when the tax

regulations of this Province are being reviewed that they have input from

Western and Southern Labrador. Because those two communities - and I use the

word "communities" in the sense that it is more global, not just one or two

towns - those districts, Menihek and Eagle River, are directly affected by the

tax structure in the other province.

And the business community is affected and so is the

employment factor. And of course, not to completely disregard the individuals

living there. We should attempt to make a level playing field for the business

community and also for the residents of the community so that they can support

the local businesses without having to pay extra money. That is what I want this

Government to do. But I specifically ask that they have input, because there are

several things affected: one, tobacco tax; two, gasoline tax; three, RST.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liquor tax?

MR. A. SNOW: The liquor tax is not too much out of whack.

But the RST and hotel accommodations are big factors in Western Labrador. I do

not have any personal holdings in hotels although I wish I did sometimes with

the amount of business they are doing in Western Labrador. But they are

specifically affected by the fact that the Province of Quebec does not charge

any sales tax on lodgings. So you can see right away that that would give a

hotel operator in Quebec, in the border town of Fermont, a 12 per cent

advantage. That is a significant advantage.

What I want specifically - and I know the President of

Treasury Board is listening intently to what I am saying. I can see he is

writing it all down and listening to it, and he wants to get all the points that

I am making. He is going to ensure that there is input from the local

communities in Western and Southern Labrador. Because these people are the ones

affected and I would specifically ask that before they impose the new taxes that

they are talking about and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now I knew he was listening, I knew I would

wake him up - I mean, I knew he would pay closer attention to what I am saying.

And I would hope that they would appoint people to some sort of a task force

with representation from the business community and consumers in Western and

Southern Labrador. Because these are the people who are affected.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

On motion, resolution carried.

A Bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, 1986," (Bill

No. 14).

On motion, Clauses 1 and 2, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Order 3, Committee of Supply,

the estimates of the Executive Council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 3? Motion 3?

MR. BAKER: Order 2, sorry, Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 2.

MR. BAKER: Estimates of the Executive Council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Estimates of the Executive Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I am just waiting for the Opposition House

Leader. Are you ready?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was waiting to make

sure that the Opposition House Leader knew exactly what we were doing, and I am

glad that he does.

These are the estimates of the Executive Council, and as

President of the Council I will attempt to answer all questions that the

Opposition may put. The total expenditure here is slightly over $14 million.

Your Honour will be pleased to note that that is down from a revised expenditure

last year of a little over $15 million. So it represents about $1 million less

than was budgeted (Inaudible) or than was spent last year.

The Executive Council includes Lieutenant-Governor's

establishment, which normally does not take a great deal of time. In terms of

the Executive Council: the Executive Council is responsible for the provision of

all support services to Cabinet and the various committees. For instance, we

have the Resource Policy Committee and the Social Policy Committee. These two

committees in particular rely heavily upon the services of the Executive

Council. Obviously the control on distribution and dispersement of Cabinet

papers and keeping track of developing the papers and making sure there is a

right place in the system at the right time is an extremely important function.

They are also responsible for Newfoundland Information

Services, and also for Treasury Board. Treasury Board is a committee of Cabinet

that is different from the other committees and has a much enlarged function

responsible for essentially the control of spending, that is what Treasury Board

is responsible for in addition to government personnel matters, and in addition

to the collective bargaining process. So, Treasury Board is normally considered

as a separate entity, but in fact, it is part of the office of Executive

Council.

Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat also comes under

Executive Council, and even though the IGA reports directly to the Premier and

is directly responsible to the Premier, it is still considered under the

estimates of the Executive Council, and is still considered to be part of

Executive Council.

The Women's Policy Office is another

section of the Executive

Council, a very important section, and has been very, very active during the

last year and, indeed, during the last two years that I have been associated

with the Women's Policy Office, and Minister responsible for the Status of

Women. And the advisory council on the Status of Women also is provided with

funding through Executive Council.

The Hibernia Monitoring Committee is responsible for

monitoring and developing action plans for all aspects of the impact of the

Hibernia Project on the Province, and that also comes under Executive Council.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am quite pleased to answer any questions

that Members opposite might have. I should also point out that I think it is

normal that the Consolidated Funds Services also are dealt with in the Committee

of Supply and the Whole House, and that at this point in time we will be dealing

with these as well. So, Mr. Chairman, I eagerly await questions from Members

opposite.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Minister

for his brief and cordial introduction into the Estimates, and for telling us

what the Estimates cover, what department, what divisions of the department and

the government is covered under the Estimates and so on. I suspect as we get

along with, I think, around eleven or eleven and a half hours remaining out of

the seventy-five, something like that, which we can use in Estimates debates

such as this or concurrence, I guess we will have to judge as an Opposition

which is the best available option for us. My suspicion is, without having

thoroughly discussed it with my colleagues here, that the best process for

debate, not only from our perspective as an Opposition, but from the perspective

of Members opposite, particularly private Members like we are, backbenchers, not

privileged to be Members of the Executive Council. The best possibility for

debate, I think, is the Estimates because you can get up for ten minutes at a

time and I think it is a lot easier. Most people get up with the feeling that if

they have thirty minutes to speak in the debate, as our rules allow, they have

to speak for thirty minutes. That is not absolutely necessary, unless if you are

on the Opposition side, as some Members opposite, the Government House Leader,

would know, from time to time Opposition Members feel compelled to speak for the

thirty minutes for other reasons, filling out time or whatever the case might

be. Generally speaking, the best debates I find are the Estimates in the House

or anything in Supply, any time we are in Committee of Supply because Members

can get up for ten minutes at a time and they can talk about anything under the

sun, anything goes when you are talking about financial bills, anything goes,

well, within the realm of good taste and decorum and parliamentary rules, but

you do not have to stick to for example, the last bill we just passed, Tobacco

tax. You can talk about anything of the nature of what the Government does and

all the rest of it, so, the Government House Leader has kindly introduced his

Estimates now in five or six minutes, in a fairly innocuous way, he has not

given us much detail, he just said: Now the Estimates of the Executive Council

cover Treasury Board, and in Treasury Board you have this division and that

division and this division and that division. Then he says: and it covers

Executive Council and Executive Council covers this division and that division

and this division and that division, and he says it covers the Premier's Office,

and it covers this division and that division and this division and that

division. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has introduced his Estimates in a very

general sort of way let me say, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ambiguous.

MR. SIMMS: - but knowing - ambiguous is another good

word, I thank the Member for Placentia, who is obviously fully aware - I thank

the Member for Placentia who knows how the Government House Leader acts better

than I do, even better than I.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might even get up for ten minutes.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he might even get up for ten minutes and

I would encourage him to do so; I am sure he has lots on his mind. Anyway, as I

said, we have eleven or eleven and a half hours to go, so how many days is that,

six, seven or eight days more and we will have lots of time and I know the

Government House Leader will be - If he does not intend to get up on his own

free will and accord, we will have to provoke him, because we will ask

penetrating questions, questions from previous Hansards that we have researched,

asked by Members over there when they were in Opposition, we have been doing a

bit of that and it is rather interesting, Mr. Chairman, when you do some

research like that, really interesting.

Actually, I remember a couple of years ago, the Minister of

Social Services will recall this one a year and a half ago or so, one day when

we were up in the old Chamber, I got up and I asked the Minister of Social

Services three questions about what was he going to do to help the people on low

income because of the high electricity cost and all these kinds of added

pressures and the Minister got up and gave rather interesting answers, but the

irony of it all was that the three questions I asked were precisely the same

questions that he asked two or three years before that, to Charlie Brett, when

he was Minister I think of Social Services, and the answers, the biggest irony

of all, was that the answers that the Minister gave were almost the same as

those that Charlie gave about three years ago.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, that is right, that is right. I must

confess, we are new at that and most of us over on this side have not the

dramatic flair that the Member for Port de Grave had when he was in opposition.

He had a flair for it there is no doubt about it, but we are working on it and

we are coming along, mind you, we only have to worry about it for another couple

of years anyway -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: - so I hope the Member for Port de Grave and

his other colleagues over there do not lose the flair, do not lose the flair

because they may need it; they may need it sooner than they realize, Mr.

Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, Executive Council - I had the privilege of serving

in that portfolio myself for close to a couple years I guess, and, Executive

Council is perhaps the unsung hero; the unsung hero the Executive Council is,

the unsung hero of the Government's bureaucracy, because the Executive Council,

as we all know runs the Government bureaucracy, it runs the Cabinet, it runs the

Government and the people employed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, yes, it runs the Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I do not mean it runs the Cabinet in

terms of decisions we know who does that, it is the Premier; it is certainly not

the Minister of Finance, and the Member for Placentia even agrees with me, he is

over there jumping up and down! The point I am trying to make is that the

Executive Council - they are the real cogs, there is no question about that in

the running of the Government and everything else; they are the people who act

as Secretary, they provide the Secretariats to the various Cabinet Committees in

the entire Cabinet and all the rest of it. And you require people I think of

tremendous talents, it requires people of -

AN HON. MEMBER: When I asked him these questions he was

so embarrassed by (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder could you control the

Member for Exploits who has a way of letting words flood out of his mouth -

AN HON. MEMBER: Verbal barrage.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and speaking out of turn, usually his

favourite interruption is not so! Not so! Not so! Today we hear something

different which is rather unique after two years of sitting there.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, you need people of

extraordinary talent I think in the Executive Council of the Government.

Extraordinary talent. You have the Clerk of the Cabinet, the Senior Bureaucrat

of the Province, and you have secretariats who secretary the Cabinet Committees

and they should be extraordinary people, particularly when dealing with a

Government of this nature, a Government that lacks competence for the most part,

I say with all due respect to the people as individuals and personalities, I

like them all. There is none of them over there that I dislike. None of them. I

like them all. But I have to confess from a political perspective there are

Ministers over there who are not competent. They really are not competent in

their portfolios. Perhaps they would be competent in some other portfolio. And I

know those with the lean and hungry look, -

AN HON. MEMBER: Young (Inaudible) over there.

MR. SIMMS: - in the back benches are over there secretly

pounding their desks as I speak, as I talk about the incompetence of Ministers.

They are in the back benches there, they are like flies, I suppose, they are

like hawks, they are like crows. They are over there rubbing their hands, -

MR. WINSOR: In glee.

MR. SIMMS: Chomping at the bit. And so they should be. If

they are worth their salt at all they should be. Ambitious and interested in

serving in the Cabinet of a Government, not necessarily this Government, but of

a Government. So the Executive Council plays an extremely important role.

Then you have Treasury Board. Now Treasury Board is another

interesting portfolio as well, one which I was privileged to hold for a period

of time. Not as long as the Minister as a matter of fact, he served in that

portfolio longer than I did. I was there nearly two years, a year and a half to

two years. Anyway, but I enjoyed it immensely. But it is the arm of Government

that has the most difficult task of all, of any Government Department over

there, Treasury Board is the least appreciated, is the least understood arm of

Government.

MR. MURPHY: Why?

MR. SIMMS: I am glad the hon. the Member for St. John's

South asked that question. Because, Mr. Chairman, on the one hand, the Treasury

Board Minister has to deal with his colleagues who share the front benches with

him day after day, after day who are looking for -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is fighting with them.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that is right, always fighting with them.

Looking for more money for this, more money for that. I assume they are. They

should be, for programs in their Departments in particular. And the President of

Treasury Board has to hold the line. He has to say no, no, as he said to me the

other day in answer to a question. No, no, no. Mr. Chairman, that is what the

President of Treasury Board has to say. So that is what is on the one hand. You

have to deal with your own colleagues and the other Government Members in trying

to control expenditures, trying to keep the Budget under control. That is a

difficult enough job in itself. You see it is not the Minister of Finance.

Everybody thinks the Minister of Finance does the Budget. Well in reality it is

the Minister of Treasury Board that does the Budget, in reality, the Minister of

Finance basically looks at revenue options, what taxes we might impose, this,

that and the other thing. But the Budget, the Departmental expenditures and all

the rest of it is done by the President of Treasury Board. But the Minister of

Finance gets the chance to stand up in the House and gets his face on television

in front of thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders on Budget Day, and

somehow the perception is the Minister of Finance is responsible for all of

this.

MR. WINSOR: Is that the reason why he never knows the

answer to anything?

MR. SIMMS: And that is why the Minister of Finance

honestly and I say it with great respect to him -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder would the hon. Member permit me to put the questions

for the Late Show.

MR. SIMMS: Sure, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first question: I would like to debate

the answer given to me regarding the dumping of septic waste at Robin Hood Bay -

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

AN HON. MEMBER: To whom is that directed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I assume it is to the Minister of

Environment and Lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, the Member for St. John's East

Extern, yes.

Question number two: I am not satisfied with the Premier's

response to my question about the impact of the Government's decision to raise

the minimum wage for domestics and the need for complimentary measures to assist

employers of domestics to have affordable child care and housekeeping, and I

would like to deal with the issues at greater length on the Late Show - the hon.

Member for Humber East.

Question number three: I am not satisfied with the answers to

my question to the Minister of Mines and Energy on the subject of negotiations

with Quebec - the hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I was saying the impression is that it is all the Minister

of Finance's Budget but it really is not, it is the President of Treasury

Board's Budget, and as I was saying earlier the Treasury Board President has the

most thankless job in the Province today. He has the financial question on the

one hand, and then, of course, he has the problem of negotiating. The Member

sitting there opposite, the Member for Gander, is the Province's chief

negotiator, for the entire Government, all the people, the taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador in it's dealings with it's public sector unions. He is

the Provinces chief negotiator. Now, if you want to look at an area of the

public service and a job in Cabinet that probably is one that most people would

shy away from, I suspect that is probably one. Not too many would like to have

that job. There are some. I liked it. In fact I enjoyed it, frankly. It depends,

I guess, on how you deal with it, and most importantly it depends, not only on

your own philosophy and what you want to do in negotiations with public sector

unions, but you have to have the support of your colleagues. You have to have

the support of your Cabinet colleagues and that is not always easy to get. I

suspect, in the era and the age we live in these days, over the last two years,

the President of Treasury Board, who is a born socialist, he is a left-winger,

everybody knows it, would have preferred that things in the last year or year

and a hald in terms of negotiations with the public sector, were handled a

little bit differently. I know how he would have liked to have done it. I am

sure of it. I feel it in my guts. Now, he is going to have to get up and deny it

because obviously he has to spout the words of the Cabinet, more particularly

his seatmate but not his soulmate, the Premier. He has to espouse the views of

the Leader of the Government and so does the Cabinet. We all know that.

MR. WINSOR: Leaning to the left is no good, defence is

what he is going to have to learn. (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is another item. I will not get

into that just yet. My friend here Sam Slick, or Sam Spade as he is known in

some circles, old Sam in some other circles, Sam Snitch, Sam Boney, Sam Surley.

The only individual that might be able to usurp the great reputation this Member

has gained now is my friend for Kilbride who is coming on strong. It is no good

to be a leftwinger out in Gander, you have to learn how to play defence. That is

what Sam Bowly tells me. That is what the Member for Gander needs to do.

Anyway, I am trying to sing their praises.

MR. WINSOR: Tomorrow morning, boy. Tomorrow morning.

MR. SIMMS: Shut up. Shut up.

If my friend to my left here, not philosophically but

figurative could whisper a tiny bit it would be appreciated.

If Members opposite are paying attention, and some are, I am

trying to sing the praises of the Government House Leader, and even my friend

here does not understand why I am doing that, but believe me behind everything

there is a motive, and for those who did not hear me at the beginning these are

really just preliminary comments, just preliminary comments. What I am trying to

see is if there is going to be a debate and discussion on the Estimates of

Executive Council, Treasury Board, and the Premier's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

Time is up. We are debating under rules 15, 15 and 10. Is

that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: 15, 10 and 10 -

MR. SIMMS: 15, 15 at the beginning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At the beginning, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, so 15 is up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fifteen minutes is up, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Let's see if anyone else wants to get up. May

I get up again?

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, the Executive Council Estimates

include the offices of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women as

well as the Women's Policy Office. Those are two divisions of Executive Council

that I would like to make some comments about.

These offices - I should clarify, the Women's Policy office

is appropriately called an Office, it is a division of Executive Council, it is

part of the regular public service. Its function is to give the Government

advice on how policy proposals affect women as well as to initiate within

Government ideas for improving policies, programs and services so that the women

of the Province will be served by the government better than they are now.

The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, of

course, is an agency established by provincial legislation which really operates

at arms length from the Cabinet. It is made up of Members appointed by the

Cabinet and has a staff although the funding is provided through a block amount.

Now, both these groups have an extremely important function.

One is an in house function and one is an external function involving both

advising government privately but also serving as an outspoken advocate for

women's rights. Disappointingly, the government decreased the budgets of both

these agencies. The Women's Policy Office has been cut by 12 per cent from what

was spent last year, and the Provincial Advisory Council was reduced by 4 per

cent from the actual expenditure last year. Now it so happens that on the same

pages of the Estimates as the Women's Policy Office are the Newfoundland

Information Services, the propaganda office of the Government which got a

whopping increase and protocol, which everyone now knows got a huge increase.

These discrepancies are impossible for most of us to justify, why now with the

recession, hurting women disproportionately with government's other budget

policies hurting women disproportionately would the government reduce its

support for the Women's Policy Office and the Provincial Advisory Council when

it can find the means to boost the coffers of the Propaganda Office and provide

funding for wining and dining visiting dignitaries through the protocol vote?

Now, Chairperson, it seems to most of us that the

government's priorities are screwed up. Just take Newfoundland Information

Services; Newfoundland Information Services functioned over the years primarily

as a small office employing two or three people who co-ordinated the release of

information by the government which organized Ministers new conferences and

which sent out to the news rooms of the Province the text of news releases of

Ministers.

Now since the government changed two years ago, the fax

machine has been introduced to most departments of the government. I suppose by

now all departments, perhaps the President of Treasury Board will tell us how

many fax machines there are owned and operated by the Provincial Government. Now

we might be quite surprised to learn, but now that fax machines have

proliferated and it is so easy for Ministers and government officials to

disseminate information to the news media and the public, why do we need to

spend even as much as what was spent two years ago on Newfoundland Information

Services? Now instead of the government decreasing that vote to recognize how

technology has superseded staff, we see the government increasing the

Newfoundland Information Services budget, what is it, five fold, six fold over

the last couple of years.

No matter what the Minister or anyone opposite says about

what the previous government did, no matter what mistakes the previous

government made, the fact of the matter is that the Members opposite now form

the government, the Members opposite are in the process of eliminating 3,500

Provincial Government funded jobs in the province. The Members opposite are in

the process of drastically reducing and downgrading essential public services

such as health care, education and social services. So no matter what criticism

may be levelled justifiably at previous administrations, there is no excuse for

the Members opposite at the same time as they are laying off massive numbers of

public servants and downgrading essential public services, boosting spending on

PR, on propaganda, on the Newfoundland Information Service and on protocol,

there is no excuse.

These developments, the cut in essential services, the

increases in discretionary partisan political and entertainment categories are

not acceptable. Now, Chairperson, I have just been handed a list here, it says,

selected salary increase figures according to the salary details for 1990-91 and

1991-92 for Executive Council. Now we see in the Premier's Office - Executive,

fourteen staff, both years, last year the average salary was $37,881. We see an

increase of 9.5 per cent, up over $41,000. Then moving right along we see

Resource Policy, Director and Planning Officers, -

MR. BAKER: Say that again.

MS. VERGE: Okay, I will go over it again for the

President of Treasury Board, and the President of the Executive Council who of

course is responsible for all of this along with the Premier. The Premier's

Office - Executive, the number of staff in each year, fourteen, the same number.

The average salary last year $37,900, rounded off to the nearest hundred; the

average salary in the new Budget year $41,500 for a percentage increase of 9.5.

The next category Resource Policy, Director and Planning

Officers -the number of staff last year, six; in the new year four, a reduction

of two staff. The average salary last year was $47,600, this year $56,500, for a

percentage increase of 18.7.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MS. VERGE: That was the Resource Policy Office of

Executive Council. This is all Executive Council. Resource Policy, the Director

and Planning Officers, the average salary has increased from last year to this

year by 18.7 per cent.

The next category the Social Policy Analyst, there is one

position, and the salary has gone up by 17.3 per cent from $41,300 to $48,400,

17.3 per cent for the Social Policy Analyst. Well what about the cleaning woman

in the hospital who all along has been paid less than men doing work of equal

value and who had the negotiated pay equity and wage and benefits increases for

this year wiped out?

Okay next in Executive Council we have the Budgetary Analyst,

of course, these people have more responsibilities that ever. Now they have to

camouflage what the Government is doing, and they have to hide the regressive

measures, they have to bury the inequities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this (I