October

16, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Admit His Honour the Administrator.

PREMIER WELLS: Your Honour, the House of Assembly,

agreeable to Your Honour's command, have proceeded to the choice of a Speaker

and have elected Lloyd George Snow, Member for the District of Trinity - Bay de

Verde, to that office, and by their direction, I present him for Your Honour's

approval.

HIS HONOUR, THE ADMINISTRATOR (T. A. Hickman): On behalf

of Her Majesty, I assure you of my sense of your efficiency and I do most fully

approve, and confirm you as the Speaker.

MR. L. SNOW: Your Honour, having approved the choice of

this House in constituting me as its Speaker, it now becomes my duty in the name

of the representatives of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, the people of this

Province, respectfully to claim of Your Honour their accustomed rights and

privileges, especially that they shall have freedom of speech in their debates,

that they may be free from arrest during their attendance in Parliament and that

I, as Speaker, may have full access to Your Honour's presence at all reasonable

times, and that they have confirmed to them all their ancient rights and

privileges which have been confirmed to them by Your Honour's predecessors.

HIS HONOUR, THE ADMINISTRATOR: On behalf of Her Majesty,

I do confirm this House in the enjoyment of all its ancient and undoubted rights

and privileges.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Your Honour, this is not a formal

Statement, as such, on behalf of government, but I rise to join with all members

of the House in welcoming two new members, one who is presently seated in the

House, the Member for Grand Falls, Mr. Mackey, and one who has recently been

elected to sit in the House, but has to, of course, wait the normal processes of

time to ensure that there is no challenge to the qualification to sit in the

House, Mr. Vey from Gander.

On behalf of all hon. members on this side of the House, and

I am sure, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will speak on behalf of all

hon. members opposite, I welcome the two new members; I hope they will find an

opportunity to make a constructive contribution to the governing of the

Province, one on the government side and one on the Opposition side. As all hon.

members know, the responsibility to govern the Province and to provide for sound

and fair government in the Province, is a responsibility on both sides of the

House, not just on the side that happens to form the government at the time, and

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that both hon. members will have a chance to make a

contribution and will do so. I welcome them sincerely on behalf of the members

on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With concurrence of

members, I would simply add that, we in the Official Opposition are delighted to

have the Member for Grand Falls sitting with us and we look forward to debating

with Mr. Vey, for the few months leading up to the next election.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: I would like to join with the Premier and the

Leader of the Opposition in welcoming both new members to the House and

congratulating them on their election and the very great privilege, honour and

responsibility they will have to represent their constituents in this House of

Assembly.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier.

Everyone remembers that the Premier came to power on a

promise of bringing home every mother's son, although ironically and sadly,

mothers, fathers and whole families are now leaving the Province in droves

because of the dismal failure of this Liberal Administration's approach to

economic development.

Statistics Canada reports that almost 16,000 people moved

away last year and that was worse than any previous year for which they kept

records.

Will the Premier confirm, that the problem of depopulation is

escalating, that even more people have left the Province so far this year than

last year. Will the Premier tell us the out-migration figure for this year to

date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will make the same offer to

this Leader of the Opposition that I made to her predecessor. The day that she

stands in this House and demonstrates that I ever made that statement, I will

resign my seat. If she can't, she ought, if she has any integrity to resign hers

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - or stop making the statement.

On the second point, Mr. Speaker, out-migration has been a

problem that has plagued this Province ever since it has been a Province. Only

in a relatively few quarters or years has there not been a net out-migration. At

times when we had a higher natural birthrate than we do now, we had constant

growth in the population, now we don't, with the lowest birthrate in the

country. I would say, Mr. Speaker, yes there has been a significant increase in

out-migration in the last two years or so, I think the figures will demonstrate

that, but I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that if you look back over the figures,

say the last six years for which we've had responsibility for government - that

is the period that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking about - I would say

there were fewer people left this Province, the net out-migration was less or

certainly no more than it was in the prior six years for which the members

opposite had responsibility for government. So I think it is quite improper for

the Leader of the Opposition to put forward this proposition now. I will check

those figures and bring them before the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and see.

It certainly has been in the same range, if not fewer than it was in the prior

six year.

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

MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is wrong, everyone in

the Province remembers that he made a dramatic and emotional campaign promise in

1989 to bring home every mothers' son, everyone remembers that. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I note the Premier avoided answering my precise questions. He did not

tell us the out-migration figure for this year to date. His answer indicates

that indeed it is worst than last year and that last year indeed was the worst

number in reported history. Let me ask the Premier, will he tell us the

projections his government has for population decline over the next three to

five years and the estimates the Department of Finance has for the drop in

equalization payments from the federal government because of the anticipated

population decline?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the figures

right off the top of my head but I will undertake to get the figures and I will

bring them to the House tomorrow. I do know that there was a significant

increase in the year 1994, and there was a significant increase in this current

year to date, but I do know that the closure of the fishery by the federal

government has put 30,000 people out of the means of earning a living, out of a

job.

Now, Mr. Speaker, unless the people are going to be totally

complacent and do nothing, and make no effort, then they are going to go where

they can find jobs, but I am also satisfied that if you look at the actual

figures you will find that our growth in employment has been quite significant,

and if you take account of the circumstances in the fishery, and discount the

fishery, you will see that our growth in the rest of the economy in terms of

employment has been one of the best in the country; so clearly the government

cannot just simply offset the fact that the closure of the fishery has caused a

loss of 30,000 jobs, and write 30,000 in replacement for it overnight. Of course

there is going to be an impact. Of course there is going to be an increase in

out-migration - that is to be expected - but when you look at those figures, I

wonder how the Opposition will explain the severe out-migration in the six years

prior to 1989, when they didn't have a fisheries crisis to cope with?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Will you admit, Premier, that your Liberal

government is directly responsible for triggering the worst out-migration in the

Province's history? You are directly responsible because as Premier of this

Province, as head of the government responsible for fish processing, you have

turned your back on the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: Will you admit you are directly responsible

because you let a fantastic opportunity to develop the Lower Churchill slip

through your fingers? And will you admit that you are directly responsible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS VERGE: - because you allowed Hibernia jobs to be towed

out of Marystown harbour?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not admit any such

thing. Every proposition the hon. member put is totally without foundation -

absolutely and totally without foundation. I will give her, now, some figures on

employment increase. Even taking into account the closure of the fishery,

employment improved by a total of 4,000 this September over September of last

year. That wasn't just September. That has been consistent throughout 1995 over

1994. Slow but steady growth, to the point where the increase was 2 per cent

more in employment and the unemployment rate fell by about 2 percentage points.

Mr. Speaker, when you take account of the fisheries, when you

take that into consideration, the employment increase in the rest of the economy

was 4.3 per cent. So no, I will not take responsibility for any such outlandish

statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More questions for the

Premier who has presided over the worst out-migration in the Province's history,

and who is now presiding over an economy with thousands of fewer jobs than when

he took office in the spring of 1989.

The Smallwood government the Premier served in in the 1960s

had an overt resettlement policy and provided financial assistance for people to

move to growth centres. Today the Premier's Liberal Administration has the same

goal pursued in a different manner. The Premier's government is ignoring the

fishery just the same; the Premier's government is pulling the plug on rural

development associations -

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

MS VERGE: - the Premier's government is centralizing

services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, she is on a supplementary, I ask her

to get to her question.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why, Premier, have you

chosen a covert resettlement policy which is resulting in mass out-migration and

the loss of many of our best and brightest people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will provide the answer

tomorrow when I have the detailed figures and then we will see where the

migration was and whether or not the Leader of the Opposition's claim has any

substance. I will deal with the question at that time.

My preliminary assessment of the figures would indicate to me

that the position she has taken is totally without foundation. In the last two

years there has been a significant increase, that is true, but that is because

of the closure of the groundfish fishery. If you look at the past six years from

the time we took responsibility for government in June of 1989 until now, and

compare that with the six years prior to that, you will see, Mr. Speaker, that

it has been of the same size in total. In fact, in the first part of the last

six years I think you will find that there was significant improvement, and it

is only the closure of the groundfish fishery that has caused this problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some

questions for the new Minister of Finance. Let me welcome the minister to his

portfolio. I look forward to working with him.

Now that he has had an opportunity to familiarize himself

with the finances of the Province, particularly the budgetary position, could

the minister tell us: The former minister, last year in his Budget, told us that

he predicted a $1.9 million surplus on current and capital account combined. We

pointed out at the time that that included some $88 million deficit, actually,

as a result of the fact that there were funds in there from the sell-out of the

South Coast ferry service, transfer from sinking fund surpluses, and sale of

some certain Crown corporation, so that in fact instead of a $1.9 million

surplus, what the minister actually brought in was an $88 million deficit.

Would the minister now confirm that the former minister

actually cooked the books in order to try to give the illusion of a surplus?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: I say to the hon. member that the former

minister may have been a Baker, but I don't believe he cooked the books.

In answer to his question, I think the statement of the hon.

minister fairly set forth the financial position of the Province but, as he

says, it will be difficult to maintain a current surplus given the economic

conditions of the country as a whole, which have deteriorated somewhat, so we

are reviewing the Province's fiscal position currently and we will report to the

House in probably a month or so, within that time frame.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us what

the latest projections are? He says he will give us a full report in a month's

time, but I know from experience that numbers are available... Almost on a daily

basis there is an update of where we are as major things take place. Would he

tell us what his latest projections are? Has he confirmed the numbers that were

in last year's Budget or, in fact, is there now a very different picture as we

are led to believe that there is? Will the minister confirm that, in spite of

these number games that the minister played last year, we have actually slipped

from a $1.9 million surplus to a $50 million deficit now projected for the end

of this fiscal year? Would the minister like to confirm that, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot confirm the hon. member's figures. We are still in

the process of evaluating. Our own current revenues are holding very well. We

are concerned about equalization and what may happen there, largely as a result

of the slippage of the national economy from a projected growth rate of

approximately 4 per cent to something slightly over 2 per cent. Obviously that

is going to affect our equalization. We are concerned as well about the net

outflow of migration, people leaving the Province, which also, as the hon.

member knows, has an effect on equalization.

It is the Province's view that we should, for a lot of

reasons, go with the balanced budget. We will attempt to achieve that, but we

also have to look at the measures that may be necessary to do so.

As I say, within a short period of time, sometime within the

next month, I will report to the House and hopefully be able to give the member

the answer he wants in somewhat more detail.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on a

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, there are many factors that

affect the economy positively and negatively during the course of the year, and

we are aware that every year there are changes in the final estimates of

transfers. The minister predicted last year, in fact, that we would have $161

million decline in the transfer payment next year as a result of the federal

government cutbacks. In addition to that we have the $88 million or $90 million

that I talked about as one-time income or revenue that the government had last

year, and other factors that will add up to about $300 million this minister

will have to find in order to balance the budget this year. How does the

minister propose to do that? Does he have a magic wand that he is going to wave,

or is he going to have another cooked Budget again this year? How will he find

that $300 million to try to give the illusion this year of a balanced Budget?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member says, it will be difficult to do in future

years; it is certainly our hope to do so. I think he is wrong in his assertion

that the Budget in the current year was not accurate. There were one-time cash

flows, but balances are balances and that is what we did hope to achieve. It is

also our stated objective for the years to come, but as to how we will approach

that, of course, is not a decision of the Minister of Finance; it is a decision

of Cabinet, ultimately.

As he mentions, we do know some figures. The transfer

payments next year will decline not by $160 million but by $111 million. The

year after that it will be in the order of $161 million, which will make that

task very difficult. Essentially what we have to cope with are the diminishing

transfers from Ottawa. The unpredictable element, I will say in the end, is

equalization, which varies very much depending on population growth in the

Province, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the national economy but

we will give that in detail.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: If I heard the minister correctly, then he

is now predicting that federal transfers for next year will decrease by $111

million. The figure in the budget of last year was $160 million. So is the

minister now telling us that there is a $49 million favourable variance in

transfers predicted for next year? You are not being consistent, I say to the

minister, Mr. Speaker. The budget document from last year clearly spells out a

predicted $160 million reduction for next year, now the minister is telling us

something less. Which figure is accurate?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon.

member's recollection may not be correct. In the budget it said that next year

the difference in transfer payments will be approximately $100 million. There

has been a slight upward variation of that to $111 million for next year and the

following year an additional incremental $50 million is added on top of that for

a total of $161 million in the fiscal year 1997-98. So I think he is using the

correct figures but for the wrong years.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I have

a question for the Minister of Education concerning the situation at the

University where we have an impasse between MUNFA and the University

administration, where negotiations are at an impasse. It is causing great

concern among students. They are not sure if negotiations will commence and the

year will not be disrupted. Has the minister had discussions with both

representatives of the University administration and MUNFA to see if there is a

chance that they will get back to negotiations so students concerns will be put

to rest?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon.

member on his promotion.

The University, through the President, has advised me of the

situation at the University. I have not met with the faculty union. They have

not requested a meeting. We have been treating the University, Mr. Speaker, at

pretty well arms length. We give them their budget and they administer it and up

to this time at least, we are quite satisfied with the way they have been doing

that. There is a dispute between union and management which I have every

confidence will be resolved in due course as long as people of goodwill remain

on both sides of the issue but I have not at this time and government has not at

this time made any decision that we would interfere in the normal collective

bargaining process, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We all know what

the minister and the government's due course means, that might mean five years

time. Students at the University are very, very concerned about what might

happen to them in this current year. There are very serious implications with

student aid, landlord tenant accommodations, arrangements that have been made by

students, graduation deadlines, it is a very serious time for students at the

University. While I respect that you have let the University operate at arms

length don't you feel that it is a place for you or some of your colleagues to

get involved to see if you can straighten this mess out over there so that

students, parents and the local business community here will not suffer the

consequences of a disruption at the University this year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in the kind of democracy that we

live in, people have the right to negotiate through unions for better pay

increases, that is one of the things we accept. Now I am not sure the hon.

member would accept the resolution of that problem. I am not sure he would be

prepared to give up the kind of democracy that we have enjoyed. If government or

any other agency were to intervene then we would tip the scales one way or the

other, either in favour of management or in favour of the union and that is

certainly not our intent, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to intervene every time

an agency of government is involved in a dispute with a union then we will have

to change the whole process of our democratic system that we have come to

cherish and love over the years and I certainly have no intention of doing that,

Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

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

amazes me how the minister suddenly realizes the value of democratic

negotiations. It is too bad that he did not realize that over the last four or

five months with the inflammatory statements that he has made when we seem to

make progress on educational issues and he knocked us back ten steps.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to ask the minister: has he had

any representation made to him by representatives of the CSU, the student

leaders at MUN? If he has not, would he undertake to get in touch with student

representatives at the University to hear first hand their concerns because it

is a very worrisome time. There are some very serious implications for thousands

of students, some 15,000 on the M.U.N. campus itself, if there is indeed a

disruption in this academic year.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I won't comment on the tangent

which is simply a figment of the hon. member's imagination.

The student union hasn't gotten in touch with me on this

specific issue. There has been representation with the ADM within the department

who is responsible for post-secondary education. They have had preliminary

discussions. The Council has been notified, advised, that I am quite willing, my

door is forever open, to meet with representatives of the student union. Over

the last three years I've had this position, the relationship between myself and

the student's union has been one that is second to none in all of Canada, and

that relationship will continue. When they see fit to sit down and discuss this

issue my door is forever open. If they are not satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker,

I will go to their door and discuss this issue.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. I wonder if the minister would

inform the House as to how many appeals the Level III TAGS program has received

up to today, and how many of those appeals have been reviewed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A fairly good

question, but I think he is addressing it to the wrong minister. I should ask my

hon. colleague the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to respond.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a prime

example of combining those portfolios and the need of having a separate ministry

of fisheries as we had brought forward in the beginning is being displayed here

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister

another question which I'm sure that he should have some input into. I wonder if

the minister would be kind enough to tell the House today the people who make up

this Level III appeals board. Who are they, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman

should be addressing his questions to the appropriate minister, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. It is

another example of the fishery people out there today left out to dry by the

minister not accepting responsibility and answering the questions as directed to

him. Here today we are dealing with a Level III process in the TAGS appeals

program where nobody knows who the participants of that appeals board are. We

are dealing with a phantom group that you would only find in a Communist country

or a police state. I ask the minister if he would be responsible enough to name

this appeals board and allow our people out there today to come and make

representation in the normal way of going before the board and putting forward

their case where they can get compensation which is rightfully theirs.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible) phantom of the opera (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I'm glad to see the Member for Placentia has

a lot of confidence. I saw in the paper today that he is looking forward to both

levels of government helping him.

Let me say to the hon. Member for Bonavista South that within

the next week or so we will be able to inform him of that Level III group. It is

a situation that is still, I suppose, for the want of another word, in

discussion and in negotiation, and we want to make sure that we give our federal

friends every opportunity to disclose.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: My question is to the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs. At the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Municipalities a few days ago the minister announced his government's intention

to prepare a white paper on regional government. Does the minister propose a

regional structure in the Ontario model with its attendant bureaucratic

structure, extra level of bureaucracy, or does he propose to introduce an

area-wide services model whereby area-wide services can be provided on a

co-operative basis by member municipalities? Which structure is he intending to

propose in the White Paper?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the second one.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford-Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that

his approach, therefore, is based upon the British Columbia model, after a

fact-finding trip to British Columbia this summer with his deputy and several

departmental officials? When does the minister intend to hold public or private

consultation forums with municipalities in the Province, so that they can have

input into the formulation of the statements to be included in the White Paper?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. TOBIN: How many golf courses did you play when you

were in B.C.?

MR. REID: I only played on one, it was raining the other

three days I was there.

Mr. Speaker, the idea and the intentions of my department in

creating a White Paper will evolve from meetings that my staff and I will be

holding around the Province with various representatives of both the

Administrators Association, the Federation of Municipalities, a number of mayors

and councillors throughout the Province.

I am hoping that the White Paper should be ready to present

to Cabinet some time early in 1996, and notice, I am saying `hoping'. I still

have a fair amount of consulting to be done with the Federation of

Municipalities and other groups in the Province before we are ready to prepare

the White Paper, and I will say this, quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, that, where

my hon. critic has spent such a long period of time in municipal government, I

encourage him to have input into the White Paper and to me, personally, being my

critic now, to tell me and help me, in some ways that I can achieve I suppose,

what I am setting out or hoping to set out to do in the White Paper. We have

serious problems in the Province today as it relates to some municipalities and

I think that this will, eventually, help solve some of those problems. So I

offer my colleague ample opportunity, himself and any member of his party and

anyone in this Province, to have input into that White Paper development, and I

am hoping that can be done in the next couple of months.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the minister commit himself to holding

public forums across the Province to listen to municipalities; and could he

today therefore, make a statement that his proposal is not going to result in a

forced amalgamation in a disguise of regional approaches?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I wonder sometimes, where certain

people, and not only my hon. friend across the way, get this idea that the

regional approach has something to do with amalgamation. They are two separate

entities entirely. This government pursued a line of amalgamations around this

Province. Just three weeks ago, three communities on the North-west Coast came

in and requested amalgamation and I hope that we can accommodate them.

The idea of the regional councils will be one that will be

offered, I suppose, to communities around the Province, and those communities

who wish to take

part in the regional concept, the sharing of services in a

particular region in the Province, will do so. But I will assure my hon. friend

and this House that the approach will be coming from down here up to government,

not from government down there; that is basically why I am creating the White

Paper and, hopefully, at the end of the day, the communities around the Province

will accept the idea of regionalization and maybe we'll be a lot better off for

it in the end.

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

Extern.

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

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Mr. Minister, we are all familiar with the situation with the

Grand Bruit ferry on the South Coast. Could you tell us when that situation will

be resolved?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the case of the Grand Bruit ferry, is a case of

which we, as a government have given it over to private enterprise to run it. We

have nine ferries we operate ourselves and the five along the South Coast are

operated by private enterprise.

My talks, as of this morning, with the executive of the

department - and I am meeting with the operators of that ferry tomorrow morning

- gives me some indication that it may be at least minimum, another three weeks

before the camshaft and the engine is repaired on that ferry. It is still in

operation today working on one engine but it could be another two or three weeks

before they get the engine repaired.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, could the minister now inform

us of the amount of money that has been spent on helicopter service by the

government, on that situation?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I don't have the exact number of dollars, Mr.

Speaker, that we have spent to date on helicopter service, but I can tell you

that since the individuals from Grand Bruit didn't want a regular helicopter

service, we didn't put it in there when they complained about the service they

were getting. What we can tell you very clearly is that while the ferry is out

of service, we do not pay the daily cost of that boat that was agreed upon in

the contract.

So, the money that would normally be spent on the contract is

paid out in helicopter service when required; otherwise, we have hired on a

long-liner to transport freight to and from Rose Blanche to Grand Bruit. Now, we

have a swing vessel, the Sound of Islay, that we had used down in other areas

when other vessels were on refit. We now have that one available and she is now

in Grand Bruit or will be there tomorrow, and then there will be no more

helicopter service provided. I do not have the exact dollar but I can surely get

it over the next couple of days and provide it to the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move the following resolution.

"Whereas

Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982

provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any

provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by

proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where

so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the

legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

"And

whereas Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland

with Canada..." is as set out in the Terms as amended by the amendment of 1987;

"Now therefore the House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to

issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of

Canada in accordance with the Schedule..." which I have set forth to this notice

and I don't need to read, Mr. Speaker. Most people are quite familiar with it so

I won't read it formally into the record, but I assume it can be taken as read

and notice having been given.

"And be it further resolved that upon approval and adoption

by this House of this Resolution, the Speaker be directed to forward a true copy

of this Resolution to His Excellency the Governor General, certifying that the

provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982 , respecting the adoption of a

Resolution by the House of Assembly of Newfoundland have been met."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Hydro

Corporation Act, The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, And The Crown Lands

Act."

MS VERGE: What about the mineral tax act?

DR. GIBBONS: We moved that last session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We really do our

best to try to help the hon. lady in her job.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask -

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to the hon. lady, would she please not

interrupt? We've been through this already today.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce the following bills entitled:

"An Act To Amend The Children's Law Act";

"An Act To Amend The Jury Act"; and,

"An Act To Provide For The Transfer Of The Trusteeship And

Agency Business Of Central Guarantee Trust Company To TD Trust Company."

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

Treasury Board.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Government

Money Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The

Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniform Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial

University Pensions Act,

Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993, And

The Pension Contributions Reductions Act."

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow

ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The

Law Respecting Credit Unions."

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

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

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

Waste Material Disposal Act And The

Summary Proceedings Act." Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Point of order, yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, just a question to the Government

House Leader. We see any number of notices being given here again today and

pending legislation and so on. Have the legislative review committees ceased to

function? Because there is no legislation being referred to them any more. At

the time the concept was announced by the Premier there was quite a bit of do

made about it, and there is no doubt that the committees can fulfil a very

useful function.

It seems that the committees are being bypassed. Not all

legislation, I realize, should go to a review committee, but there is some that

should. I think the committees at least should be utilized in a proper manner

without referring everything and tying up too much time and so on. I'm just

wondering could the Government House Leader inform the House whether or not we

are just doing away with the legislative review committees or will we see them

utilized.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure it is a point of

order, but with the consent of all I would be happy to respond because I think

my hon. friend has raised a valid point.

Let me assure him there has been no change in the commitment

of this Administration to allow committees to review legislation. We have,

within the last year or two, written a new rule here in the House, and my

recollection is that all hands agreed to it, and it gives the committees certain

powers and they are there unimpaired.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Clerk

automatically refers legislation to the Chairs of the committees, who presumably

then consult with their colleagues, and any bill that a committee wishes to

address we would be very happy to ensure that, within a reasonable time frame,

it doesn't come on for debate until the committee has had an opportunity to deal

with it.

In addition, the rules also provide for reference of a bill,

at the request of a committee, after the House has dealt with second reading, so

the committee has the power to do that.

The bills of which we have given notice today, I think it is

fair to say, are routine and I don't know whether a committee would wish to do

them or not. If they can, fine, but I think my hon. friend will find, when he

sees them, that they are in themselves routine. But we haven't changed our

policy; we haven't changed our practice. Indeed, there are a number of specific

bills we intend to refer to committees, and ask committees if they would be good

enough to seek public input, such as the Limitations Act, I suspect the new

Fatalities Inquiries Act, which is a word for Coroner's Act, would go there, and

a number of other bills where there may well be widespread public interest. The

City of St. John's Act, that my friend from St. John's East and I have been in

touch with each other about, would be another candidate for consideration by

committee should a committee so wish.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, it was not really a

point of order. The hon. member was seeking clarification on the committees, I

guess. There was no point of order.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the last sitting of this hon. House I rose and presented a

number of petitions from my constituents on the issue of the electoral

boundaries changes. Prior to the closing in the last sitting I presented over

1,000 names from constituents of mine. A number of petitions came in after the

House of Assembly closed, and I wish to present a few sheets of these today.

The petition I have today is from Little Bay in Green Bay, a

very small community, signed by 103 people, which would probably constitute

every single voting adult in that particular community. The prayer of the

petition is as follows:

WHEREAS our communities have been in Green Bay district for

many years; and

WHEREAS a recent government proposal would see some of our

communities assigned to Baie Verte district;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, petition the Honourable House

of Assembly not to entertain or approve any proposal that would see our

communities removed from Green Bay district.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has indicated in the

media that the government intends to proceed with a proposed redistribution of

electoral boundaries that will, in effect, take many communities from the

northern part of my district and put them in with Baie Verte district, and if

the plan that was talked about some months ago is the plan that is to be

introduced in this sitting of the Assembly, it would also add to what is left of

the existing Green Bay district most of the former Town of Windsor, the Windsor

ward, I guess you would call it, of the current Town of Grand Falls - Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, the communities currently in Green Bay have been

there certainly since Confederation if not before. They have a community of

interest. They are used to being one electoral district. They are used to being,

to a great extent, one economic district, and obviously the people, the

community councils, the town councils, the development association that is still

alive so far, all of these organizations wish to see their district remain

intact.

I have also had it in correspondence from, certainly, the

Mayor of the Town of Grand Falls - Windsor, that that particular community is

not particularly interested in being split into two pieces come electoral

boundary redistribution.

Mr. Speaker, apart from these practical considerations with

regard to the peoples being served by the various new districts, we have here a

process that has been wholly and entirely corrupted by the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

At the beginning the government announced a policy of a

significant reduction in the number of seats and constituted, under law, an

independent commission to review this matter. Judge Mahoney went about his

business and there was an indication from the committee that there would be

probably a forty-seat House of Assembly. The Government House Leader intervened

in that process at a public meeting in Clarenville and headed the committee

towards a forty-four seat House of Assembly. The mandate of the independent

committee was amended in this House to that effect. That committee did report

with a forty-four seat House of Assembly and that itself not being satisfactory

to the Liberal Party and their various vested and selfish interests, Mr.

Speaker, they gave another judge, this time under extremely tight constraints, a

new mandate to rework, without public hearings, the electoral boundaries in the

Province.

Out of that report, at least for the area I represent, came a

district which was called, at the last session of the House, Windsor-Springdale.

Now, the minister has indicated that there may be some name changes in districts

so I don't know if that is the designation for my area or not, but certainly, we

have seen a great number of changes in Central Newfoundland, all of them

basically tampering with the electoral map by the Liberal Party to suit its own

political ends.

The only real community of interest that I can see, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to Windsor and Springdale/Green Bay areas is that in the

recent referendum, both areas voted very similarly, Green Bay having voted 63

per cent, `No', and the Windsor ward in the town of Grand Falls/Windsor having

voted some 68 per cent, `No', in the referendum. Apart from that, there hasn't

been a long history of a community of interest. I suppose one will have to be

developed if the government goes through with this.

Many people in the Province, certainly many people in my

existing District of Green Bay, have severe concerns about how the government

went about this and how it basically corrupted the process to its own ends, to

the ends of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition of my colleague, the Member

for Green Bay. As the member pointed out, the Wells Administration, the

government's handling of boundary redistribution is shaping up to be a fiasco.

The process has been tainted. They followed the law initially by appointing an

independent commission headed by a Court of Appeal judge designated by the Chief

Justice. That commission was known as the Mahoney Commission. The commission

proposed a reduction of twelve districts to bring the total number of seats in

this House from fifty-two to forty.

The government, however, then interfered. The government

changed the law, changed the rules in midstream and had the commission do a

second round of hearings. The commission's final report called for, within the

redrawn guidelines of the act, a total of forty-four districts, which would have

been a reduction of eight seats. Now, the legitimate process cost the taxpayers

of the Province close to half a million dollars. And that process evidently has

been totally discarded by the Administration and therefore, half a million

dollars was spent for nothing. It was wasted, just money poured down the drain

at a time when hospitals have been cut and schools have been cut.

So the process is tainted, Mr. Speaker. What the government

has actually done with boundary redistribution makes a mockery of their slogan

of fairness and balance. Now, the process was initiated in the previous Finance

Minister's mini-Budget of a couple of years ago, and it was announced to achieve

certain fiscal targets. It was announced as part of a package of restraint

measures which included very severe cuts to health and education, but what we

are seeing, of course, as I pointed out, is on the one hand, a pure waste of

half a million dollars of taxpayers' money for a commission that was ignored, to

end up with only a token reduction in the number of seats from fifty-two to

forty-eight.

The forty-eight have no resemblance to the recommendations of

the legitimate commission. The forty-eight districts that are coming forward,

according to the Minister of Justice, are the forty-eight that he and his staff

cooked up. It is a configuration rigged by the Liberal Party and the Liberal

politicians for their own selfish, partisan interests. So, Mr. Speaker, the

Official Opposition will be very vigorously opposing the bill calling for the

redistribution of seats, on the grounds that the process was corrupt and the

reduction of only four seats, in the face of massive cuts in Health and

Education, is quite unfair and makes a mockery of the government's stated

policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough please

to call the bill that stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Health,

which is Order No. 7, second reading of an amendment to the Hospital and Nursing

Home Association Act. After we deal with that, assuming the House disposes of

that this afternoon before we adjourn at five, we will go on to Order 6, and

should we be so fortunate as to deal with that one, too, before we adjourn, then

we will ask the House to deal with Order No. 11, The Evidence Act -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for Grand

Bank, when one is in my job, one is even more optimistic than a person in his

job, but his job is the ultimate optimism, Mr. Speaker. But we will go on,

anyway, to No. 11 which is The Evidence Act amendment. If you would be good

enough to call Order No. 7, please, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hospital And Nursing Home Association Act" (Bill No. 9).

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

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

Bill No. 9, in the amendments that are before us, are pretty

generic and basic, really. Let me just review them for the hon. House, the

premise on which they are put forward.

Members of the House will be aware, of course, that there has

been a fair amount of restructuring done in the Health Care system over the past

year or so, such that we have now reduced our institutional boards down to about

eight and we have brought into existence some community health care boards that

are new creations of government deemed the appropriate method to deliver

community services in terms of health care. And, as a result of that, there is a

necessity to amend the bill principally dealing with the name of the bill that

is now known as The Newfoundland Hospital And Nursing Home Association Act. What

this bill does, really, is it creates a new name for that statute, and the bill

and the amendment will cause the name to be changed to The Newfoundland And

Labrador Health Care Association.

The name in the bill is principally to recognize the type of

organization that is needed and that does, in fact, exist today, and it

recognizes the changes in that organization to reflect the different boards that

they are now representing. As of the coming into existence of the act,

originally of course, there were no community health boards, so they were not

part of any organization because they didn't exist. As a result of them coming

into the health care structure, they now become part of the health care delivery

system and they will be a part of that association which previously was known as

the NHNHA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hospital and Nursing Homes Association.

So, the purpose for this is really to provide a more

appropriate name for the organization that now represents the Health Care Boards

and the Community Health Boards and really, there is no other basis for, there

is no other reason for and there is nothing else behind this amendment other

than simply to change the name to make it consistent with the role that it now

plays and the organizations that it now represents. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of that bill.

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

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

I just want a few words on Bill 9, "An Act To Amend The

Hospital And Nursing Home Association Act." We have no problem with the piece of

legislation; it is basically a name change, so we take no exception to that. We

concur that if it is a more appropriate name, then sobeit, but I want to say to

the minister, that while we have no concerns about changing the name to

Newfoundland And Labrador Health Care Association, we do have grave concerns

about the state of our health care system in this Province today. The minister

referred to the restructuring of the system and so on, and I can tell him that

out and about this Province, there are very grave concerns, not only being

expressed, but being experienced by practically every family in this Province,

which has had some relative or some friend who has had an unpleasant experience

of different magnitudes by visits to one health care institution or another. I

say to the minister, it is a very serious matter. In the minds of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians there is no doubt that behind the need for jobs

and concerns about our employment and our economy, the concerns about our health

care systems certainly rank number two in the minds of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. They are so concerned about what is happening out and about this

Province - I was going to say in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, but not only

in rural Newfoundland - as well, in urban centres, the pressure on our health

care institutions is just so immense. Every day we get phone calls in our

offices, and I am sure government members get similar calls, from people who

have problems accessing the system, or the way they are treated once they do get

into one of our health care institutions, the time they spend on stretchers

before they get a proper bed and accommodations in the hospitals and on and on

it goes.

So while we have no great concern with what this piece of

legislation does, we do have concerns about what is happening out and about our

Province with the state of our health care system, I say to the minister. I am

sure the minister is very much aware of it but, of course, it is going to take

action on behalf of the minister and the government in order to rectify some of

those problems. And, of course, our worst fear is what is going to happen in the

next year or two when we see a further reduction in payments from Ottawa. I

guess, what we are basically saying is that if our health care system is further

attacked in any way, then we are going to have one big problem throughout every

community in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we have no problems with the

bill and we lend our support to it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As to the substance

of the bill itself - of course, the bill has no real substance other than

changing the name of the act and the association. It is obviously more in

keeping to have

an act and legislation related to the organization that looks

after hospitals, nursing homes, to be able to have a designation that talks

about health care. It is not the designation, Mr. Speaker, that we are worried

about in the New Democratic Party, it is the state of health care in this

Province and in this country.

We have seen threats to health care by virtue of the changes

that have been proposed by Ottawa and implemented in the block transfer

legislation. And what is going on with the federal legislation is being echoed

in this Province by this government in terms of setting up this health care

corporation and community health care associations. What is going to be

happening is, the responsibility for cutting back services and health care to

people is going to be passed along to those associations. The government is

going to be sitting back and saying, well - like the University, Pontius Pilot

over there, the Minister of Education, Pontius Pilot, wiping his hands of any

problems with the university, `arms length, we just give them money...' Will the

Minister of Finance be saying and the Minister of Health be saying, `...we just

give them money, they decide on the priority of services.' That's what is going

to be happening when this minister starts really talking about health care and

the problems that are going on, because, as the previous speaker said, everybody

in this Province, who has his eyes open, knows the difficulties that people are

encountering with the health care system today.

I had an example brought to my attention the other day of

someone going to the Health Sciences Centre, the only emergency centre they were

told that would be capable of handling what was essentially a bad back. This

person could not walk, Mr. Speaker. He was managed to be brought to the Health

Sciences Centre by vehicle but couldn't get from the car to the emergency room.

There was nobody available to assist that person. The ambulance attendants were

told they were not allowed to do it, and this person could not move. He was in

the car outside the hospital and couldn't get from the car to the hospital, and

there was nobody there who was able to assist him. There were no orderlies,

there was nothing, Mr. Speaker, not even a wheelchair, to bring this person from

the parking lot to the inside lobby of the Health Sciences Emergency Centre to

be able to get attention, and the ambulance drivers were told they were not

allowed to conduct that activity. Then, Mr. Speaker, when the person got in,

there was no one there to be able to address that situation. Eventually, he was

put in a hard-backed chair and left there for several hours with very serious

back pain.

What happens? That type of incident is being repeated day

after day all across this Province. And this minister busies himself with

legislation that deals with changing the symbolic names of organizations and

associations, setting himself up, I suggest, to be able to say in six months

time after the Budget is down: We don't make the decisions, we just give them

the money and they make the decisions as to the level of services, the choice of

services, whether it is home care or emergency or hospital services. That is the

kind of problem we are having with the health care system in this Province

today.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now he is blaming it on people (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) people empowerment.

MR. HARRIS: People empowerment. The minister calls it

people empowerment. What I call it is downloading, Mr. Speaker. I have no

objections to the democratization of services and community control over

services. In fact, there should be more of it. But I don't want to see that used

as a tool by this minister and this government to blame the lack of services on

those very communities which are being asked to now participate for the first

time.

That is what is going to happen and we will have the Minister

of - the Minister of Health is listening very carefully to the kinds of comments

that the Minister of Education and Training makes when talking about the

University. He is getting his lines ready. He is preparing his answers to

questions from this side of the House. I know they are going to come. They are

going to come fast and furious, because in this session of the House as in every

session of the House, example after example of inadequate access to health care

is brought forward in this House and the minister is going to be asked to deal

with it.

I heard recently, and perhaps the minister can confirm this

when he speaks in closing the debate, that the thirty-two beds at St. Clare's

Hospital that were supposedly closed temporarily will never open again.

Supposedly closed temporarily, supposedly to open this Fall - the word I've

heard, and I would ask the minister to deal with this, is that they aren't going

to reopen and they will very likely and very certainly never open again. Because

this minister and this government have, in fact, carried out the program of

cutback of needed services. We hear that the waiting lines for elective surgery

are getting longer, that people aren't getting the medical treatment they

deserve.

The threat, Mr. Speaker, of the destruction of the Medicare

system is there in the federal block funding bill, the new block funding

transfer act. The threat is there and the invitation is there to provinces which

have fiscal restraints to start dismantling piece by piece the Medicare system.

I remind the minister, and I will remind him again when this matter comes up in

the House for debate, of the five principles of Medicare that have been

enshrined in the Canada Health Act, and not only that, by the unanimous

resolution of this House. Every single member in this House who was here that

day voted for a resolution brought forth by me to ask that these principles of

universality, public access, public administration.... (Inaudible); that the

five principles enshrined in the Canada Health At be, in fact, placed in the

Constitution of Canada itself. That was a part of the Charlottetown Accord

debate, and the request of this Legislature by unanimous consent was to have

those five principles enshrined in the Constitution itself.

So, in agreeing to the change of wording, Mr. Speaker, I also

want to harken the minister's attention to the concern that our Party feels,

especially because of our proud place in the history of the development of our

Medicare system in this country - particularly because of that - but also, and

more importantly, because of the need for us in this country to maintain a

Medicare system that provides and guarantees the hospital care that people need,

and the health care that people need.

What we see at the federal level - and this Province is a

victim of it, as are others, but we have to fight back - the federal House

grants all kinds of protection and guarantees to the pharmaceutical companies.

In two pieces of legislation, both passed by the Mulroney government, they

granted extra copyright protection to the pharmaceutical companies up to twenty

years, turning over millions and millions and millions of dollars to the

pharmaceutical companies, and preventing generic drugs from being introduced

earlier. That has happened on the one hand, helping these corporations, and on

the other hand, it is cutting back in funding for basic health care services.

So we see a trend that is being continued by the Liberal

Government in Ottawa of passing over, bit by bit, gradually but certainly,

health care to private corporations, to multinational corporations, to American

service corporations, all of these people gradually creeping in. Just as the

Liberal Government in New Brunswick wanted to bring in an American company to

run a prison, what is happening in other parts of this country is that American

companies are being brought in to help run parts of health care for private

patients to pay extra billing, facility fees - call it what you will - these are

deteriorations to the health care system. So while we change the name of this

act, and change the name of the association to broaden the obvious

responsibility that the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association has

beyond that of running the hospitals and nursing homes, but to be involved

actively in health care as a whole, we have to be very concerned as to what is

happening to health care itself.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I end my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like a few words on this bill which is essentially

about a name change. We only wish, I guess, the members of this House and the

citizens of this Province, that was only the sort of thing that the Minister of

Health was doing to the health care system in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity over the last few

months to serve on a task force set up by the Leader of the Opposition, to

travel the Province as an Opposition task force, to get public input into what

people think are the problems in our health care system, and what might be done

to improve things in the future. It says it all, I suppose, with regard to this

particular government, that it took an opposition party to ask the public what

they thought about the current state of our health care system and where we

might have improvements and where we should be going in the future.

We saw the great fiasco not that long ago here in St. John's

where the government announced the closure of two hospitals, the Salvation Army

Grace, the Janeway, and also the Children's Rehab Centre - great fanfare with

regard to this closure, that it had to do with a restructuring generally of

health care, a change of emphasis in health care from institutional to community

care, that sort of thing. It wasn't very long after that announcement, when we

had some questions on the issue, that it became very obvious that the government

really didn't have a plan to restructure health care, certainly not in the

capital city of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, almost everybody who has come out to the forums

I have attended have seemed to indicate that it will be physically impossible to

achieve the consolidation that the minister is talking about in terms of the

institutions in the capital city without a massive capital expenditure program.

There appears to be absolutely no work done in terms of engineering planning or

detailed medical plans as to how this is going to come about. The government

says it is as a result of general restructuring, a general change of emphasis.

It refuses to admit and has refused to admit that it is being driven by

economics, that the government wants to save money generally out of the health

care system towards an overall budgetary position.

Mr. Speaker, it has become obvious that very little thought

went into this proposed restructuring before it occurred. It is going to be

physically impossible to relocate the facilities, services and staff in the

Salvation Army Grace and the Janeway, in either the General Hospital or St.

Clare's Hospital, physically impossible. A major capital extension or expansion

would have to be required at a minimum to achieve that. We understand, as well,

that in the very short term the children's rehab is going to be uprooted and

moved, I think, to the Janeway Hospital which is going to involve considerable

expense, fuss, bother and stress on the children involved. This move in itself

will be temporary insofar as eventually the plan is to close the Janeway.

One thing that has become obvious from the committee meetings

that I have attended around the Province, Mr. Speaker, is that there is

widespread support for the Janeway and considerable concern about placing a

children's hospital, a paediatric hospital, either physically in or very

physically near the adult hospital, the General Hospital - so much so, that we

have listened to the people, Mr. Speaker, and have stated, as a matter of policy

for our party, that the children's hospital, the Janeway, be it in its current

location or in some new location, should be a totally separate institution,

separate unto itself. Because basically everybody in the field seems to feel

that mixing adult and paediatric medicine is just not wise, is just not safe, is

just not appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, in our committee travels we did urban areas and

we did some rural areas. We found that there have been some major problems in

rural areas as well, especially with regard to the retention of medical

personnel, doctors in particular. Whatever schemes this government has brought

in so far, none of them seem to work. There has been a real problem with

retention of physicians in the rural areas, even to the extent that we have had

a serious problem with retention of physicians in regional hospitals. Major

regional sites have had great difficulty in maintaining staff levels with regard

to specialists or recruiting specialists when people move on.

When the government started, Mr. Speaker, some years ago to

basically change the health care system, the theory was that a lot of the small

rural hospitals would be phased out, as was the case in my district, the

Springdale Hospital was phased out. The regional hospitals - in my case, the one

at Grand Falls-Windsor -would be expanded to accommodate the closure of the

small rural hospitals. What in fact happened, Mr. Speaker, was a loss of the

small rural hospitals and further consolidations and cutbacks at the regional

level. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, the theory as laid out some years ago, did not

turn out to be as it was going to be and furthermore, we have grave suspicions

that the current restructuring is not going to turn out the way the government

is saying it should.

The theory that the minister and his officials have been

espousing, Mr. Speaker, is that we are going to deinstitutionalize to the

greatest extent possible and increase resources and facilities, personnel,

etcetera, at the community level. All of that sounds good in theory, Mr.

Speaker, but what it requires is actual action, expenditure of dollars,

significant planning and a political will to make something happen.

What we have been told in our various public forums that our

committee has held, is that yes, the cutbacks have been occurring at the

institutional level but unfortunately there has not been a commensurate increase

in the services at the community level; so what we have is indeed a reduction in

expenditures in health care but not a transfer of expenditures from the

institutional to the community level. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there has been very

little change at the community level except again, in name only.

The bill we are talking about here has to do with a name

change. We have had some name changes; we have had community health care boards

set up, some administrative staff approved but it remains to be seen and so far

there is no evidence to the effect that the government will be placing financial

resources at the fingertips of the community health boards to significantly

achieve a transfer of emphasis from the institutional to the community level.

Mr. Speaker, this government has shown that it has reacted in

recent times to threats of major cutbacks at the federal level, major decreases

in its own provincial revenues because of its abysmal handling of the economy

without any adequate planning and without any intention underneath the rhetoric

of actually putting the money into community care to make up for the downsizing

of our institutional health care system.

Mr. Speaker, as one member, you hear the usual litany of

complaints of individual constituents and citizens who have had problems

accessing the health care. Just about every family in the Province has had its

own particular nightmare or two. It is to the point now where, for the first

time in the six years I have been in this House, I have actually had calls from

people asking me to intercede with medical professionals to see if they can get

in to see a specialist, to see if they can get in to have a heart operation, and

that sort of thing done.

Unlike the former Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, I am very

reluctant to get involved in having people jump lines because that is a

dangerous precedent to set, and you could be doing a great disservice to the

person who is in line ahead of the person whom you are representing. Mr.

Speaker, it speaks volumes that people would have to call their MHA to see if

they can be moved up on a list, to see if they can avail of a medical service in

time, you know, to save considerable problems or even to save their lives, but

what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a health care system in crisis, definitely

underfunded, and where the funding is there is a lot of waste in the system, we

found that out as well, Mr. Speaker, and it remains to be seen if the government

is actually going to make any significant improvements with regard to the waste

we have in the system.

We have people occupying beds, Mr. Speaker, that are designed

for extremely intensive care and who basically should be in nursing homes; there

has been absolutely no significant rationalization of bed utilization in this

Province at all; all we are seeing are bed closures at the acute-care level and

no significant redistribution to save money with regard to an appropriate use

for an individual patient in an appropriate bed. A lot of work remains to be

done there, Mr. Speaker, but all this government seems to be doing is cutting

back, cutting back, restructuring on paper, not doing significant, real, useful

beneficial restructuring and really, not going anywhere, not so far in terms of

the change of emphasis from institutional to the community care; they are paying

lip service to it but so far, the money hasn't been there.

One more point before I close, Mr. Speaker. This government

has a tendency to download everything, Mr. Speaker, and the latest tendency on

the part of this government is with regard to the new health care boards. These

boards seem to be answering for the grief and the misery in the health care

system in our Province. If one were to watch the television or listen to the

radio, you would swear Sister Davis was the Minister of Health and not the hon.

Member for St. John's North.

The government ultimately gives the budgets and the direction

to these health care boards and should ultimately be responsible. It is nothing

short of amazing, Mr. Speaker, and probably speaks well of their public

relations effort that such a crisis could be occurring in the health care system

and the minister could be so little called into account by the public media of

the Province. They've done a very good job of transferring the responsibility,

or at least the appearance and the public relations value of the responsibility,

to appointed health care boards.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to down load and change the

emphasis of the health care system into the community level and set up these

boards, and have them take the flak, then I think the people should have a

greater say in these boards, who gets on them and so on and so forth. One thing

we did find in the committee meetings we had around and about was an increasing

frustration with not elected politicians but appointed people making major

decisions with regard to health care, and they really were not answerable to the

general public in any real meaningful way.

If you are going to go all the way with democracy, as the

Minister of Education and Training made such a fuss about there some time

earlier in this afternoon's sitting, then it might be advisable to have a large

part if not all of these health care board elected by the people. If the

government is going to give these boards certain set-piece budgets, envelopes in

which to operate, then in that way if the members of the boards are elected by

the public the citizenry will have some say in the priorities on how their tax

dollars are being spent.

Right now we have a system that is being cut to shreds in

terms of money. A change of emphasis on paper but not in reality, waiting lists

for every type of medical service you can possibly think of, and all we can see

are looming cuts from the federal government and expectations of more of the

same here in this Province.

It is about time that the Minister of Health and the

government generally started taking responsibility for what is happening in the

health care system in this Province, start answering to the people for what is

happening, and quit hiding behind these appointed health care boards. If you

want democracy at the local level then let the local people through elected

health care boards have a real say in the priorities of the limited funding

available from government. It isn't enough to say: We are going to change the

emphasis from institutional to community care and then do nothing about it,

except to set up a bureaucratic structure that doesn't have the financial

resources to carry out that mandate.

That is all I will say on the issue for now. Suffice it to

say that this is an important issue, one of the most important issues in the

Province ongoing at the moment, and no doubt it will be an issue of some

considerable discussion as this Assembly winds its way through this fall

session. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure

today to get up to say a few words on this name change, on a bill, a name

change. It is amazing what is going on in this Province today, and the thing we

have to address here is not about jobs, not about out-migration, not about

education, but a name change. A name change to reflect what?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. CAREEN: Listen, why don't you go out and see

something about litter? Why don't you go out on the roads and check the litter?

That is all you had to speak about the summer was the litter on the roads, not

about the litter that is going to be there the winter when all those people are

laid off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I will take my pills over the summer there, I

say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I too was a part of that committee this summer

that met with various people across this Province on the horror stories in

health care. I remember the Premier today, our Premier, going around in 1989

sitting by bedsides of the sick and the elderly, and the crocodile tears, and

what was going to be done with health care. We've seen what he has done with

health care. We've seen what the present minister's predecessor did to health

care. We can see that past minister passed on the same blunt knife and dull axe

to the present Minister of Health.

This summer I witnessed an eighty-seven year old lady who was

being yoyoed back and forth between Placentia hospital and her home and St.

John's. I don't care where an eighty-seven year old lady lives in this Province,

whether it is from Cape Chidley to Cape St. Mary's, or Cape Ray to Cape Spear,

she deserves the respect that goes with that age, but, no, in the system she was

falling through the cracks and it is not right for any elderly person in this

Province in this day and age to be subject to that, to pain, torment, and worry.

Now, they are talking about changing the name of the bill.

They should probably talk about changing the minister. Put a good Liberal in

that position. There are one or two over there, or probably they could do what

they did with the past Minister of Finance. He had more departments than Woolco.

Probably they could do that to someone else, but not this yes man, this minister

we have here now. The only time he says, no, is when the Premier says, no.

Last night I was coming in on the Trans-Canada and there was

a lady who called in from Corner Brook, Western Memorial, about pillows. A

person being admitted to a hospital, Western Memorial, was told they had to

bring their own pillow. Now, this government in six years has closed down 700

beds so there should be at least 700 pillows, if not 1400 pillows if there are

two to a bed. Where are they? Up to their cabins, I suppose. It is amazing. What

have we come to? Another lady called in and said her husband had been admitted

and they had to take a blanket and stuff it in a pillowcase, and he is up

talking about changing the name of a board. They know the cost of everything and

the value of nothing. That is what the Liberal administration of this Province

knows, the value of nothing.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Be nice now. He will be singing in the

choir again Sunday.

MR. CAREEN: No, he is not allowed in the choir. His words

will go down with him. They will see to that.

Doctors, retaining doctors in this Province - the idea of the

minister was from a television show called Northern Exposure .

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CAREEN: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Someone watched a television series and seen an idea they did

in this fictitional town and they thought they could adopt it to this Province.

Well, there are real people here. There are real people in this Province. They

are not fictitious. I do not know what is going on with the minister's

imagination, but this is not a fictitious town in some TV serial. This is real

life. Why do you not get out and talk to your people? Talk to the people of this

Province.

I say to the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation

that he heard an echo there three weeks ago in his district and it is going to

be nothing like the echo he is going to hear in the next two years. The gospel

singers have even deserted him. I can see that the next bill to be introduced by

the Minister of Health will be to order people in this Province not to get sick

or not to get old.

Well, probably that is what all this out-migration is about.

If they listened to what Parzival Copes said in the early seventies, and Jay

Parker, and this Michael Walker from Corner Brook, that Newfoundland can only

sustain 250,000 people. Is that what our health care is going to be about, and

the urbanization of us rural people? Is that what it is about? Someone is

listening because that is what is going on in this Province. They are tearing at

the whole fabric of the people of this Province with no respect at all of where

you live.

Another incident is of a ninety-six year old woman in this

Province who had broken her hip and was sent home from Western Memorial

Hospital. She re-injured herself, was sent back to Western Memorial, and was

sent home again without a proper bed - the family could not get a bed - and the

son had to wedge chairs from around the kitchen table around his ninety-six year

old mother's bed. Now I don't care about what your political stripes are here;

that is not right.

I will say to the minister today, and this is not an ugly

threat or a dirty promise, it would not be my ninety-six year old grandmother.

And I will tell you what; if the minister's grandmother was in that kind of

trouble, I would help that minister. I would help anybody here - ninety-six

years old, and had to jam chairs around her bed to keep her from falling out on

the floor again. Is that what we have become?

I know all the ministers are not... Do they know? Probably

they know their own stories. Probably they deal with things on a day-to-day

basis, but that is not the perception given out in this Province. Where is this

vote for real change? What was the slogan in eighty-nine?

AN HON. MEMBER: Real change.

MR. CAREEN: Is this the change? No, it can't be. Not so

many people could swallow that hook, line and sinker, could they? To change the

name, and all this talk about what the minister is - a name change.

Mr. Speaker, we hear about the Janeway. We hear talk about

the Grace and the Children's Rehab. There is no Plan B; there is no Plan C. They

are not even talking about the alphabet at all. Cut, hack, slash, blunt knives,

dull axes.

The waiting lists are way worse. Your health care changes in

St. John's not only affect the people of St. John's; they affect the whole

Province. I am glad the minister knows that. I see he was talking to one of his

colleagues; they must have just told him.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) the real minister.

MR. CAREEN: The real minister? There is only one minister

over there.

They were talking about community care a few months ago, and

how much money did they take out of there in this year's budget? They were

talking about community care, home care. Well, that needs money if you are going

to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: He got that in a barrel from Boston.

The waiting lists, the doctors, the retaining of doctors...

Doctors told me around those meetings that they even contribute to the cost of

health care in this Province because they cannot get any satisfaction with

specialists, and when they cannot get any satisfaction with specialists they

have to tell their people: Hey, I will order an ambulance. The ambulance goes to

emergency, and that drives up cost. Everything contributes to cost in this

Province, and you are not attacking the right causes, Sir, you are not attacking

the right causes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear what Efford said about you?

MR. CAREEN: Efford would like to say some stuff about me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is the first day. I

had a few words, but I will be back at the minister before this session is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Member for Burin

- Placentia West, I would like to remind hon. members about our Standing Order

11. I know in the last session of the House, the spring session, and this

session so far this afternoon, I would like to bring hon. members' attention to

Standing Order 11.(c): "When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between

him [or her] and the Chair, nor interrupt him [or her], except to raise a point

of order." I noticed that the hon. Minister of Health was the one who did it

earlier this afternoon but in the last spring session -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

In the last session I knew it was happening quite frequently.

I would ask hon. members that they would adhere to that Standing Order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me first of all

say, if I may - I may not be totally in order - but I want to first of all take

this opportunity to congratulate the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde on his

election to the Speaker's Chair today. I for one have sat in this House now - I

guess in terms of successive sitting in this House there are only a couple who

would be ahead of me.

MR. ROBERTS: How many (inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: No, fourth term, fourteenth year. You would

have served term, but I'm talking about in terms of successive service in this

House.

MR. ROBERTS: I had six successive as well as (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Speakers

now are somewhat different from the Speakers when he was there because the

Speaker at that time was usually the premier. But right now we've got a more

impartial system in this House, and I want to say today that I'm one who is

especially pleased that this House chose the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde

as the Speaker.

I want to as well congratulate the Deputy Speaker, yourself,

the Member for Bellevue, who no doubt has a lot of experience in the Chair and

will serve it well; and the Member for Lewisporte as well on his nomination.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No I'm not, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say

that I truly believe it. I will say as well that the former Speaker, the Member

for Humber West, was one of the best Speakers that I served with in this House.

One of the best.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He will soon be hung.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker,I look forward to, as all

other members do, the hanging of the Member for Humber West.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're so nice today, Glenn.

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, Mr. Speaker, suggested that the Member for Humber West was a good

member, a good minister, a good Speaker as well.

MR. FUREY: A fine upstanding member.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. One of these days he will be

hung. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when he is hung that it is hung where we can see

it.

MR. ROBERTS: He is going to be hanged, not hung.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) hang (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Going to be hanged.

MR. TOBIN: Going to be hanged. So long as it is well....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: I would think, Mr. Speaker, that he was a much

(inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: By the time I sit down you will be hung, I

tell the Minister of Health that. I never got into you yet.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber West was a good Speaker,

an excellent Speaker. I was proud to serve in this House with him, and I would

suggest that he was much better as Speaker than he is going to be as the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. He has big shoes to fill.

That is the other thing I wanted to say today. This House of

Assembly, in my opinion, will not be the same with the absence of the former

Member for Gander It was also a privilege to serve in this Legislature with the

former Member for Gander, the former Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you quitting?

MR. TOBIN: No, I'm not quitting. He was a good man, a

good member, and I was proud to be associated with him. Because when the Premier

of this Province and the Government House Leader went into tantrums, Mr.

Speaker, had no respect for anyone or anything in this House, the former Member

for Gander was always there to bring back some sensibility to the Legislature. I

don't think that is going to be present this time, because most of the crowd

over there are even more foolish than the Minister of Justice.

Now I want to have a few words to say about this health bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is about time (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is time Judy Billard, the lady

up in Grand Bruit who was fighting day-in and day-out for the constituents, all

she is doing is being insulted by the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: He should go back to Halifax.

MR. TOBIN: Who should go back to Halifax? I am not from

Halifax. Who are you talking about, should go back? Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation does what he does best, mumbles behind the

microphone, `...someone should go back to Halifax.' Now who should go back to

Halifax? Is it the people of Grand Bruit, Mr. Speaker? Is he talking about the

people of Grand Bruit moving to Halifax, I would like to ask the minister?

Again, he lacks the courage to stand up and say out loud what he hides behind

the desk and says. The name change, Mr. Speaker -

MR. EFFORD: Put your hands in your pocket now

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They are in my pocket and not in someone

else's like you spent your lifetime at.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The name change here, Mr. Speaker, if that is

the best that this minister can bring before the House then it is a sad

reflection on the health care system because the health care in this Province is

basically in chaos, it is in chaos. All the people he wants, Mr. Speaker, some

of the paid people in this Province are involved in the health care to sing the

glories of the health care system all he wants. The health care in this Province

is in chaos and this government is totally responsible for the mess that the

health care system finds itself in. This minister, Mr. Speaker, in my judgement,

is not competent in the field of health care to deal with it. I say that, Mr.

Speaker - and I believe to support what I am saying - the incompetence of this

minister is clearly illustrated and demonstrated by the presence of two of his

colleagues to my left and to my right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I tell you one thing, it will take more

than them to restrain me if I get in the mood.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I think they over-rated the IQ on that

side.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess we were

concerned about the level of IQ on this side too when Len Simms told you he did

not want you to be a candidate for us.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will say to the Minister of Health,

that you will not, sir, last as long in this assembly as the former Member from

Grand Falls lasted and not only that, you will not last as long in this assembly

as I have lasted, I say to the Member for St. John's North because you have been

elected for your last time. You've been elected for your last time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and make no mistake about that because

I spoke with people the other day who told me they supported you in the last

election and will never mark an x for you again. I was told that the other day,

yes, I was.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I don't want to last as long as you,

you're foolish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I wish he would, I say to

the member because probably the problem with the health care system is that that

minister takes himself too seriously. That minister takes himself to be the

answer to the health care problems and what he says goes. He is the only one, in

his judgement, that understands the health care system. He is the only one, in

his judgement, that has the answer to the health care system and he is the only

one in everybody else's judgement that is the problem with the health care

system in this Province. That is the situation that exists.

You talk about people on the Burin Peninsula, the minister

was down there, there was nothing wrong, nothing wrong when I was asking

questions before closing the last Assembly. There were no problems with the

health care as far as the minister was concerned but a few days later when he

ventured to the Burin Peninsula and met with the doctors he realized then that

there was a problem.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) do your work eating donuts

at Tim Horton's.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I was not eating donuts in

Tim Horton's, I was serving coffee with a donut in Tim Horton's.

Mr. Speaker, myself and the Minister of Health did some work

down there that day and I was proud - I will say right now that I was grateful

the Minister of Health came and showed his support for the cause that Tim

Horton's was sponsoring. We worked together at that but I say that the minister

fully understood the problems that the doctors brought to his attention that

day. He fully understood it, Mr. Speaker, but he hasn't really done enough to

solve the problems of the health care system in this Province. The health care

system is in dire straits. Why does the Minister of Health want to be the person

who would go down in history as closing the children's hospital in this

Province? What satisfaction does the minister take in having the people of

Newfoundland and Canada realize: I am the person who shut down the children's

hospital in this Province? What satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, does the minister get

from that? What satisfaction is the minister getting from closing not hospital

beds -

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, the

Member for the Straits, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, CBC, their ally - their ally then, their ally now

to some extent - had a big forum at the CBC building on health care, the

shutting down of hospital beds. The CBC was concerned about the shutting down of

hospital beds, the closing down of, not hospitals but hospital beds. And they

put on this big forum, Mr. Speaker, and brought in the Minister of Health and

they brought in, I believe it was the member from the Straits and the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. And their biggest problem, Mr. Speaker,

to ever hit the health care system, was the closing down of a few beds at the

time.

Mr. Speaker, where are these two ministers now, who sit

around the Cabinet table and shut the hospital doors in this Province - not

hospital beds, and where is the CBC these days? Where has the CBC disappeared?

Are they not concerned about the health care needs of the Province anymore?

Half of them should be put in the hospital, that's the

problem. Say that `Glenn', say that, I said it.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Half of them should be put in the

hospital.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the Member for Grand

Bank wants to say anything, he will say it himself.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No doubt about that.

MR. TOBIN: He has never been one, neither of us has been,

from the Burin Peninsula, shy in expressing our beliefs about any issue but I

would say, Mr. Speaker, loud and clear, that the CBC and the two ministers they

had over there for that forum, were concerned about the shutting down of

hospital beds and the attack that was issued that night upon the Minister of

Health, if my memory serves me correctly, was almost unbelievable; he couldn't

even get to speak. But there has been an absence, that void, Mr. Speaker, that

great concern that Canada's National Corporation was so concerned about in this

Province, has been absent for the last little while, and these ministers, Mr.

Speaker, have done nothing.

I really don't know how the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, the Minister of Education and the others at the time, I believe

the Member for Bonavista North and others, were all concerned about closing down

hospital beds, it was not allowed to happen, it should not happen. The

government, Mr. Speaker, were negligent and careless and unconcerned about the

health care system in this Province. Now, every single one of them, Mr. Speaker,

can sit around the Cabinet table and cut beds, close beds, close hospitals, and

they even went low enough to attack the sick children of this Province by

closing down the Janeway Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I have attended health care rallies by

protesters in this Province, particularly in my own district, and the message

was loud and clear, and while people were concerned about the cutbacks to the

health care system on the Burin Peninsula, there was more concern expressed

about closing down the Janeway Children's Hospital.

I had an opportunity this past summer to spend a fair bit of

time at the Janeway Hospital, Mr. Speaker, and I saw first-hand over the weeks

of my many visits, the dedication, the concern, the support and the family

setting of these professional nurses and nursing assistants and other staff. I

saw them at work. I witnessed them express their emotions; I saw them prepare

and host a birthday party for a sick child; I saw them very disturbed and very

concerned; I saw, Mr. Speaker, working here in St. John's, a group of nurses and

nursing assistants and other professionals that any province should be proud to

have operating and working in a children's hospital. They are trained, Mr.

Speaker, as nurses, no doubt, but I firmly believe that you cannot take somebody

from an old age home one day and put them in a children's hospital the next, or

vice versa. I know they are dedicated, I know they are committed, I know they

are compassionate, caring individuals. Why, Mr. Speaker, does this Minister of

Health want to take that away from the children of this Province? Why does he

want to deprive the sick children of this Province of their own hospital?

They can have them in other provinces. They can have them in

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and B.C., Mr. Speaker. They can

have them in every other Province.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Have what?

MR. TOBIN: Children's hospitals, that you want to put the

block to.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no children's hospital in New

Brunswick.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is that what the minister wants

to justify? Is that why he doesn't want to provide a hospital here, because they

don't have one in New Brunswick?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: We are not closing the hospital here.

MR. TOBIN: You are closing the hospital. You have

announced you are closing the hospital.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The building is not the hospital.

MR. TOBIN: No, you are going to put them up in the Health

Sciences Complex, next to the Health Science. Mr. Speaker, this minister is

closing the Janeway Children's Hospital and let there be no mistake about it.

You will be remembered, Sir, as the person who deprived the children of this

Province of their own institution, and don't ever forget that. And I don't know

why you take any pride in it. I never knew you to be that type of an individual,

I say to the member. For as long as I have known him, I have never known him to

be a person who wanted to preside over a department that would close a

children's hospital.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: You are factually incorrect.

MR. TOBIN: I am factually correct, I say to the member.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Efficient under information (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You might get Sister Elizabeth Davis now to

come on and say that what I am saying is not true, but that doesn't bother me

either, I say to the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: What are you saying about the good

Sisters?

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying anything about the good

Sisters, but I will challenge anyone, Mr. Speaker, whether they be a Sister, or

a Brother, a clergy or a politician - if they are going to attack the sick

children of this Province they are not going unscarred from me as long as I

represent a constituency, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The people of this Province deserve a health

care system, and no administrators, like Sister Elizabeth Davis and others,

should be put in a financial strait-jacket where government refuses to provide

them with the funding to operate hospitals and other boards. They said, here is

the board, here is the money, but there is not half enough money to do the job

and no one knows that better than the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I would take her advice any day over

yours.

MR. TOBIN: I would say that when it comes to knowing the

health care system, she knows it far better than I do and far better than you

do, but give her the money to do the job. There is no sense in taking her advice

unless you are prepared to give her, and the health care system, the tools to

work with, because as long as you deprive them of that, we are going to be in

big trouble.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my time has elapsed, but at the same

time -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: I wouldn't expect the Minister of Health to

give me leave. I wouldn't expect him to give anyone leave when it comes to

dealing with the mess that he has created for the health care of this Province.

But I will say that legislation such as this is not the problem with the health

care system in this Province.

Home care, Mr Speaker, is another topic I will touch on

briefly. It was transferred from the Department of Social Services to the

Department of Health. I ask the minister to tell me how much money was being

spent in the budget of the Department of Social Services for home care and how

much is being spent now by the Department of Health?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Too much.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is too much, I

say to the Minister of Health!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) know about that.

MR. TOBIN: I do know. I know, Mr. Speaker, that day-in

and day-out I receive telephone calls from people who are crying out for health

care that this government is now refusing to give to them. For the minister to

say it is too much is crazy. It shows the lack of compassion of this minister.

It shows the lack of compassion and understanding for the sick that these people

have.

I ask the Minister of Health, when he stands up, if he will

tell us how much money is now being spent on home care. How can he justify

refusing needy people? How can he justify refusing a person living in his own

home who needs twenty-four-hour-a-day care and not providing it to him?

absolutely none, not an hour. How can he justify that? The Minister of Health

knows what is happening, and it is time that he did something to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments I shall take my seat, as

the Minister of Education and Training has indicated he wants to have a few

words to say on this piece. The Minister of Education and Training has indicated

he wants to speak. I don't know if he will or not. In the event that he does, I

would like for him to tell us why he is now no longer concerned about the health

care that he was so concerned about when he was in Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closes the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move

to close the debate on this amendment that is before the House. I won't take the

time now to comment on all of the voluminous inaccuracies and pieces of

misinformation that have been put forward in the debate from the other side of

the House. Sufficient to say that what has flowed across the floor in terms of

comment and information is... to call it mostly non-factual would be treating it

with too much respect. There will be another time when I will address some of

the points raised and some of the questions raised, but for now, I move that we

close debate and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hospital And Nursing

Home Association Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of

the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 9)

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would you be good enough to call, please, Order No. 6, Bill

No. 2, which stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Social Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Was that Bill No. 6?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, yes, Sir, I believe it is bill

- no, it is Bill No. 2, Order No. 6,

An Act To Amend The Social Workers

Association Act.

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

Workers Association Act". (Bill No. 2)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under the current Social Workers Act there is a provision for

a grandfathering in social workers who have not met the required academic

standards. Also, there is a provision in the act to allow that temporary

government employees who practice social work but who do not possess a social

work degree, be eligible to obtain temporary registration, renewable on an

annual basis to a maximum of seven years. This provides an opportunity for these

temporary workers to obtain the requirements to be members of the Social Workers

Association. But these provisions do not allow for non-governmental employees in

the Province, so the intent of this amendment to the act is to allow the

non-governmental employees who are practising social work the same opportunities

as those who are employed by the Government of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is a welcome piece of news, I am sure, for

those social workers who have not obtained their social worker's degree, that

they can now, under this current legislation, be permitted the same privileges

as government social workers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak on

Bill No. 2. It is my first bill to speak on as the new critic for the Department

of Social Services, and I would just like to say that I look forward to the

session of the House, and look forward to bringing the concerns of the people in

our Province forward to this hon. House as they relate to the Department of

Social Services, and indeed, the policies of the department, and the problems

that many people face in our Province.

In relation to Bill No. 2, I am also pleased that the

department has come forward and given the opportunity to non-governmental

employees to partake in the social workers - in the past, as the minister has

just stated, it has only been government employees who have had the opportunity

to do so. I think it is a step forward, a step in the right direction, and I am

sure it is very pleasing to the people who are involved in those activities

around our Province.

I would also like to take the opportunity to say to the

minister that over the past several weeks since I have been appointed critic for

the department, I have received correspondence and telephone calls from all over

the Province concerning many problems that people are facing, and many problems

that, indeed, organizations and individuals are facing throughout our Province

as they relate to her department. Over the next couple of weeks, I am sure we

will bring forward those concerns, and I look forward to a positive response on

some of those, and certainly some good debate over the next couple of months as

it relates to the Department of Social Services. With that, I will sign off and

say that I look forward to the Fall session with the minister.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to address this bill because I think it

is important. I should say I support it, but I support it with a certain

reluctance because I know about the struggle that the social work profession has

had in this Province to develop a standard of achievement of a Bachelor of

Social Work as the professional degree that gives a right to an individual to

call himself or herself a social worker. I welcome the social work registration,

but I know the Member for Burin - Placentia West had it on his plate for some

time and was interested in bringing it forward, but it did involve a lot of

negotiations. Some would criticize the Member for Burin - Placentia West for not

bringing it forward in his administration -

MR. TOBIN: I did all the leg work on it.

MR. HARRIS: I would have to give him credit for doing a

lot of leg work, and it took a lot of leg work to get recognition of the social

work profession as a profession, and the BSW as a professional designation.

There were a lot of people within the bureaucracy who were not anxious to bring

this forward and see it move along speedily, and I understand the problem that

ministers may have with these kinds of issues.

The grandfathering clause of which the minister speaks was

part of a product of that negotiations, in fact, and at the time that the

legislation was brought in there was a concern that I felt, and spoke strongly

about in committee and in this House, that even temporary workers who had been

hired en masse at the time the government was being criticized by the Hughes

Inquiry, and by witnesses to the Hughes Inquiry, for not having sufficient child

protection workers, there were a number of people hired temporarily who did not

have the professional designation, and there was a concern that these

individuals would, as it were, jump the queue. People who were doing and

undertaking Bachelor of Social Work programs at the time would not have been

able to fill positions because there were no positions any more, and they had

been filled by fifty or sixty people without BSWs.

MR. TOBIN: How many?

MR. HARRIS: The sixty that the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation had hired in response -

MR. TOBIN: Oh, yes, right on.

MR. HARRIS: - in response to the criticisms of the

department for not adequately looking after the needs of clients. There was a

concern that they would have jumped the queue and replaced graduating Bachelor

of Social Work students who would not be able to get jobs, who would have to

join others in the out-migration from this Province, to go to other provinces,

after being trained by our university and being given Bachelor of Social Work

degrees, to go out to Alberta and help the people out there, while people

holding social work positions in this Province did not have the qualifications,

because the minister hired them without the qualifications. But there was a

decent solution worked out in that the grandfathering of temporary workers on

the year-by-year basis provided that within seven years they got their Bachelor

of Social Work degree.

MR. TOBIN: They had seven years to do it.

MR. HARRIS: They had seven years to do it; those are the

temporary ones.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, they grandfathered all the permanent

ones.

MR. HARRIS: All the permanents were grandfathered in

without any requirement of upgrading. I had a big problem with that, because

while they may be doing an adequate job in certain circumstances, they did not

have professional training. They were not able to necessarily meet easily and

readily the complexities of modern social work. They were the people, in many

cases, who did not have adequate training to deal with the problems in child

welfare institutions in this Province, in homes for special care in this

Province, in foster homes in this Province, and as a result of which we have

seen some of the great tragedies of child abuse that are still the subject of

litigation, and I am referring to Mount Cashel; I am referring to foster

children who have sued the government and the department. So I was concerned

very much about that, but I was eventually persuaded that the compromise of

bringing them into the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers, and the

Registration Act, and giving the association the power, under the act, to set

standards of practice, to discipline them if they have complaints and go astray,

so now we have a situation where the protection of the public is addressed by

the ability of the professional association to have a say over the standards of

practice, over the behaviour of individuals about whom complaints may be made

from time to time, and to establish and increase the standards of practice where

necessary.

There is also a requirement for those who are grandfathered

in to undergo forty hours per year of continuing education. That, I think, is

very important because it requires registered social workers, in order to

continue to have the designation, to undergo professional training on an ongoing

basis. That too serves to increase the ability of practice and serves to further

protect the public but it is a compromise. If it appears, Mr. Speaker, that that

compromise is not working, that individuals who have been grandfathered in are

overrepresented in discipline problems or standards problems then I think

reconsideration should be given to them. I am looking forward to hearing the

Member for Burin-Placentia West who is widely experienced in the social work

field, having served in the department for a number of years and being minister

as well, to hear what he has to say about that.

What is being done here is that the same grandfathering

provisions that would allow someone who had worked for the Department of Social

Services in a permanent social work position for at least two years will be

grandfathered in. There were no permanent positions created or filled since 1986

so that meant that someone had to be working in a permanent position from 1986

on. So by the time this legislation was passed they had at least seven or eight

years of experience and I did not have a real problem in grandfathering them in

under those circumstances. Here, what has happened, is that the same

grandfathering provision is being granted to those who are not working for the

government, not an employee of the government of the Province of Newfoundland.

This could cover hospital, social workers or those who work in nursing homes

that are not directly government employees. They too are to be given the same

grandfathering or grandmothering provisions, grandparenting provisions as those

in government service and I think that that is appropriate. I have been advised

by the Newfoundland-Labrador Association of Social Workers that there may be

some 100 people in that category who are - they have applications on file from

them awaiting this amendment in order to bring them into the umbrella of the

Newfoundland-Labrador Association of Social Workers, a professional body with

self-governing provisions that allows them to discipline their members and to

withdraw the designation of social worker if it is deserved in particular

circumstances.

So with those kinds of protections and as I say with some

reluctance, as I outlined in my remarks, I would support the amendment to the

legislation that would provide for grandfathering of permanent employees who had

been employed as a social worker for at least two years immediately before the

commencement to this act. I hope, Mr. Speaker, and it is a third reading issue

really, I hope it does not mean two years prior to the passing of this

particular amending act. I hope that the proper

interpretation of that is

immediately before the commencement of the main act, that is 1992,

chapter 18.1.

I hope that it means the commencement of that particular act, not this

particular act here because I would want to ensure that the same treatment was

being given to both social workers in government positions and non-government

positions and not creating an extra category of people who may have been in

permanent social work positions for the last two years but not for the previous

period of time. So I will be seeking clarification on that

interpretation from

the table officers and hope that my initial reading is correct, that it will in

fact not give a designation to someone who is permanently employed for only two

years before now but rather two years before the passage of the original act.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would offer my support at

second reading for Bill No. 2, "An Act To Amend The Social Workers Association

Act."

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise today

to say a few quick words on Bill 2, a piece of legislation that was introduced

in this House by the former Minister of Social Services quite some time ago. I

have had several calls from my district wondering when it was going to come to

the floor of the House because a couple of people were very interested in seeing

it proclaimed into law.

I think it is a piece of legislation that will admit many

other people, and some real fine people, into the Association, the Association

that I understand my colleague for Burin - Placentia West was very instrumental

in forming some time ago. He is very eager to get to his feet and to enlighten

the House on all the wonderful things that he encountered while he was the

minister and the many things that were accomplished during his reign as Minister

of Social Services. We all wait, Mr. Speaker, to be enlightened and to hear

those things.

I think the Minister of Social Services might have been

better off had she taken a little time and brought back Bill No. 100 in its new

form. The Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture and the Minister of Health. I think what we've been hearing on the

news media this last few weeks demonstrated where such a bill would have been

very effective in dealing with some of the problems that have been brought

forward.

This bill is no earth-shattering legislation, but I can

guarantee you there are lots of earth-shattering problems out there today in the

Department of Social Services. I remember going back to the former Minister of

Social Services a year or so ago - I think it was