March 20,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, of course, is a Member of the Cabinet. She also has a very

special role with respect to public sector unions as she would know, and that

role is to play the part of an honest broker, I guess, between Treasury Board

and the unions concerned, and in that capacity she and her officials help to

bring the two sides together to try to reach collective agreements. The question

I want to ask her is this: In her capacity as honest broker, is she concerned

about the effect of Bill 16, the roll-back bill, on future collective bargaining

between the public sector unions and Treasury Board?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, excuse me if I am a bit out of

breath. I just raced down the stairs there, from the mezzanine to the House. In

response to the hon. Member's question, our Government was faced with a very,

very serious fiscal problem. We, as has been reiterated many times in the House

by the President of Treasury Board, had a tremendous job in looking at the

Budget and deciding where we could make cuts without drastically affecting

services to the people of this Province. We did that exercise, but still found

ourselves on very, very swampy ground as far as the fiscal future of this

Province was concerned. We then took what action was necessary in order to meet

our fiscal responsibilities to the people of this Province, and it did result in

a number of activities which have brought concern to some of the labour leaders

in this Province. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, from the people I have been

conversing with, that largely people understand the difficulty in which the

Government found itself and appreciate the fact that we took an approach that

looked to the future of this Province as well as to the present. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for the delay. I was

waiting for an answer to my question. My question to her: is she concerned about

the effect of Bill 16 on public sector unions?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: As Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, of course I am always interested in such things. As far as I am

concerned, from the position of the Government as employer, we are covering

every single aspect we can in order to keep relationships with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: Just wait and I will get to it. We are doing

everything we can to keep relationships as cordial as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. COWAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury

Board has said many times in this House that his door is always open, that the

Premier's door is always open, that this Government is always ready, at any

time, to keep up a good rapport with the unions of this Province, private and

public.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I am asking the

question of the Minister of Labour in her capacity as Minister of Labour. Let me

ask her this. Does she believe that future conciliation efforts of her

Department might be damaged as a result of this wage rollback, and particularly

the breaking of signed collective agreements? Does she think that will effect

future conciliation efforts on her Department's behalf?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: I have what I feel are the finest conciliation

officers in the Province. They act in a very fair fashion measuring the needs of

the employer and the employee, and they are experts in bringing people together.

I would not anticipate any problems in the future. If there were, then there

would be something wrong with the conciliation officer and that would have to be

investigated. Thank you.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think there is something wrong

with the Minister, not the conciliation officers.

Let me ask her a final questions. Does she agree in

particular that the roll back of pay equity provisions of those existing

collective agreements and the retroactive application of that part of Bill 16

impacts on women only, and is she going to urge the Government to at least

change that part of the bill?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: The bill does largely impact on women in that

regard, Mr. Speaker, and it is with a great deal of regret and with a great deal

of soul-searching that as a Cabinet we took that particular action. It was very,

very disturbing to everyone in Cabinet, not just to me because I happen to be a

woman; it was of equal concern to my male counterparts in Cabinet. Again, and I

must say this again, and, I suppose, again and again, we found ourselves in a

position where we had no other choice. The future for women and children in this

Province is being looked after more by the responsible actions we have just

taken than it would be by unbridled borrowing.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the 1989 Speech

from the Throne the following was stated: `My Government's overriding aim during

its current mandate will be to reverse these alarming trends...', and one of the

many trends mentioned was out-migration. Then the Throne Speech went on to say,

`...and provide an economy that will allow our people the opportunity to earn a

good income without having to leave the Province.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to

ask the Premier this. How does the Premier square that commitment contained in

the 1989 Throne Speech with the latest out-migration statistics which, for the

first nine months of 1990, show a net out-migration of 3284 persons?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker.

With the difficult situation we received on the hand over of Government, with

the unemployment rate like it is, with the difficult economic circumstances in

the Province, it has taken us a good deal of time to reverse it. On top of that,

there have been a number of other impacts: the Federal Government decisions with

respect to the total allowable catch in the fisheries has impacted tremendously,

there is a national economic recession, there is the Federal restrictions on the

Federal transfers to the provinces, which reduces the Province's ability to

provide service and does contribute to unemployment in the Province. Rome was

not built in a day, Mr. Speaker. We are convinced that the course we are on is

the right course and that in the end it will provide the solutions.

Now if the hon. Member were being fair he would note that at

any time when the Government was asked, or I in particular was asked how long I

thought it might take us to achieve this, I quite frankly said I thought it

might take six to ten years to reverse the trend and get it changed. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think that is completely consistent with the position. I see no

inconsistency at all.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, at no time during the election

campaign, when the Premier was talking about mothers kissing his feet because he

was going to bring their sons and daughters home, did he say it was going to

take him six to eight years. At no time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this. Is the Premier

aware that rather than reversing out-migration, as the Throne Speech talked

about in 1989, we are seeing and acceleration of net out-migration, from 1,004

people in 1988 to 1,770 people in 1989, and now 3,284 in the first nine months

in 1990, and that, in view of the statement just made by the Premier, at the

same time that unemployment has risen by two percentage points in this Province

since this Government took over. So is he not concerned about that alarming

trend? And what is the Premier going to do about it now, not six years from now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate rose by

ten percentage points after the other Government took over. We need time to

correct this problem. This cannot be done overnight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say also to the hon. gentleman that my

commitment is so strong, if we do not achieve it I will not be offering for

re-election within the six to ten years. If we do not achieve that correction, I

will not be offering for re-election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You will not be offering after the next

two years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what a presumptuous, egomaniac

we have on our hands as the Premier of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: He will run in Toronto or somewhere, that is

where he will run.

MR. RIDEOUT: The Premier could get turfed out on his ear,

Mr. Speaker, just as quickly as he was sprung into the position-

AN HON. MEMBER: Just as you did.

MR. RIDEOUT: Just as quickly as I did, yes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: - or just as quickly as David Peterson did

in Ontario. The Premier should not get so egotistical, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to the

question. When is the Premier going to table in this House, the Economic

Recovery Plan that he promised now in three successive Throne Speeches, three,

not one, not two, but three Speeches from the Throne, the Premier has promised

to table that document and, does the Premier expect to have anybody left in this

Province, living and working, after the economic genocide that the Minister of

Finance perpetrated on this Province in his Budget, just a few weeks ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question, a good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the proposition that the hon.

Member just put forward is as fictional as the one that came from the hon.

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes yesterday, when he stood in this House and

said to the House: that the Premier said that he was going to bring home every

mother's son -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - I do not know where that came from; it

is a complete fabrication, either by the hon. Member or he is repeating somebody

else's fabrication. How -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition just said is no less fiction than that was, it is no less fiction

than that was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Real change.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - and the statement that the Economic Plan

has been promised three times in three Throne Speeches is complete fiction. Mr.

Speaker, we delivered on our first proposition to put the Economic Recovery

Commission in place and that was what was stated in the original -

MR. SIMMS: The Economic Recovery Plan it said -read it

boy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, those steps were taken. The

next thing that we did, Mr. Speaker, was spend the time to develop a strategic

economic plan, it is not completed yet. It is not yet complete, we have gotten a

good deal of input from a variety of very able and capable people -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - and we hope that in the next few weeks,

we will be able to make that strategic economic plan available.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and I would

say to the Minister that one year ago the Minister of Finance said in his Budget

Speech that this Government will continue to support and encourage the fishery.

Now in the March 7th Budget Speech, the Minister of Finance said that Government

will be strengthening the Department of Fisheries. I would like to ask the

Minister of Fisheries: where does the fishery place in the expenditure

priorities of his Government, why was the Budget for the Department of Fisheries

cut by 17 per cent below the revised Budget for 1990, a cut of $5 million, and

what kind of real support, encouragement and strengthening of the fishery is

this?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I think the position the

fisheries plays in the opinion of this Government is pretty high, and I think

the facts speak for themselves. While the Budget this year has been reduced a

little, it is in areas that are not going to affect the operation of the

Department of Fisheries, or in any way lessen our chances of making the fishing

industry the type of an industry that we want it to be.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, when you factor in inflation,

the cut in the Minister's Department is about 20 per cent, and $5 million is a

pretty significant amount for the times that we are going through in the

fishery.

I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary. Is the

Government committed to economic improvements and diversification in the

fishery? And if so why has his Department and Government cut the budget for

fisheries loans and assistance, not by 17 per cent or 20 per cent but by 28 per

cent, a cut of $3 million? And I would say to the Minister, is this not the main

source of Government support to the fishery? And why really has the Minister sat

by and allowed this to happen?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, of course the Government and the

Department of Fisheries are committed to diversification of the fishery and the

economy generally. And I can only say what I said a moment ago, that any

reductions in the budget of the Department of Fisheries, and the Fisheries Loan

Board in our view, will not have any effect on the operation of the Board. And

we are realigning our priorities within the Department, and the money that we

have voted this year I am satisfied will be sufficient for us to do the job.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

Minister that it is not the operations of the Board that I am really concerned

about. I am concerned about the fishermen out and about the Province who need to

go to the Loan Board for assistance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member is on a supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: I would like to ask the Minister a final

supplementary. His Deputy Minister is alleged to have said a few weeks ago that

the Government plans to sell or increase the lease fees for seventy-three fish

processing plants, facilities, around the Province. Does the Minister have a

plan to do just that? And how does he plan to keep plants open if they are

unable to sell them? And what plan does he have for those plants that may become

unviable as a result of an increase in lease fees?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is not a fish plant in

Newfoundland that will become, as he says, unviable because of any increase in

lease fees, but we are looking at the amount we are charging for some of these

properties, and over time we hope to bring them up to a higher level to make

them more competitive, I suppose, with these private sector companies that are

operating in properties that they own. Certainly, it is not going to be done

overnight but we will over some time gradually increase the lease fees, but

certainly not to the point where it is going to interfere with the viability of

a fish plant, and if that were to happen then I am sure that we are flexible

enough within the Department to make the necessary adjustments.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the President of Treasury Board. Would he

not agree that a careful and proper reading of Bill 16 with respect to the

question of pay equity in the public service would prevent the implementation of

the pay equity agreements as indicated by the Premier that he would be prepared

to see implemented in the year of the so-called freeze? Would he agree that is

perhaps the case on a proper reading of the bill, and would he agree that the

Government should amend that bill before it gets passed by this House?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for St. John's East has some concerns, as I

understand it, that one of the

definitions that involves what is meant by pay

scales could possibly interfere with the immediate implementation of the first

stage of the pay equity. This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, was done by

draftspersons, lawyers, and so on, and as the hon. Member knows, being a lawyer

himself, sometimes maybe there are things that are overlooked. I will certainly

have a close look at what he is saying and if in fact there is some impediment

in the definition to the implementation of pay equity then during the committee

stage of the bill we will make whatever amendment is necessary to correct that

situation.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In view of that issue, and in view of the response by the

Minister of Justice yesterday with respect to a legal opinion on the validity of

the pay equity removal, and the Premier's statements outside the House, can

either the Premier or the Minister of Justice advise the House what legal

opinions may have been sought as to the validity of the agreement under the

Charter of Rights, the validity of removing the provisions of the agreement for

pay equity in respect to the Charter of Rights?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question

yesterday, as I recall, was whether or not we had prepared an opinion as such.

There was not a formal opinion prepared but Treasury Board consulted with

officials of the Department of Justice while the legislation was being prepared

and it is the opinion of the Department's officials that the legislation is

proper and valid and not unconstitutional.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: In the absence of a formal opinion, and it

seems to be some informal consultations were going on, will the Minister not

reconsider the request made to the Government to refer this matter to the

Supreme Court on a constitutional reference with respect to the Charter of

Rights?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This sort of

matter is not appropriate for reference. The only types of matters that are

referred to the Court of Appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada on a

constitutional reference would be ones that directly involve the interests of

the Province. Each day in this Province there are any number of matters that

come up for constitutional issues in criminal, civil and other types of

proceedings. The Province would not - if we took the position that we would

refer any particular matter that arises in court to the Court of Appeal for

reference the Court of Appeal would not be able to handle the work arising in

that way, Mr. Speaker.

These things have to work themselves up through the process.

If any particular party feels aggrieved as a result of Government's legislation

and it wants to take the matter before the courts then any constitutional

questions that may arise will be dealt with in the normal course of judicial

proceedings. But I just want to repeat that it is not an appropriate type of

matter for the Province as a Province to directly refer to the Court of Appeal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. In the (Inaudible) Budget the Government announced that it

would support the expenditure of $55 million in water and sewer and paving

projects. Details of that programme had been announced prior to the Budget to

allow for early tendering and construction. There was no specific mention on the

municipal capital programme in this year's Budget. Can the Minister advise what,

if any, municipal capital works programmes the Province will be supporting this

year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of

municipal capital works in the Budget because the current capital works

programme, the programme that is announced, is budgeted in the following year,

1992-1993. And it is always a year in advance in terms of the monies being put

into the financing corporation. In fact, we use bank borrowing throughout the

Province to facilitate the work that is done in the various communities. And

then the amount of capital works, the amount of dollars that are spent, are

ultimately moved into the financing corporation in the succeeding year, not in

the existing year.

So there was no specific amount in the Budget mentioned. The

only amount shown in the Budget is the actual amount being spent in the

financing corporation for loans that are already on the books.

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

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister,

as how come it could be in the Budget last year and not this year, and will he

be honest with the House and tell us how much contribution the Province will be

making this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, last year we were very

fortunate to be able to announce the capital works allocation, not the budgeted

amount, the actual allocation, because as I mentioned it does not appear in the

Budget - the allocation, earlier than we were this year. This year we were in a

situation where we were dealing with a change in the municipal grants programme.

The regional offices had to focus on that particular initiative and make sure

that the communities were well versed in the changes from the old grant system

to the new, and the capital works, which is dealt firstly in the regional

offices, had to be deferred until the grants programme was properly implemented.

I understand now the information from the regional offices is

available for me, and that will be dealt with now by the executive group and

myself, and a recommendation made to Government on a capital works programme for

this year. We could not specify an amount, even an estimate, at budget time,

because we had not dealt with the priorities as established by the regional

offices. Now that that has been dealt with, very shortly we will be able to

establish an amount of capital works for the forthcoming year and that will be

announced at that time in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to the surprise of no one, the

Minister has confirmed that he is less efficient this year than he was last

year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: And last year he made a mess of

everything.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister: how much

money will be allocated for capital works this year? And when will the details

of that project be announced so that councils can get on and plan, do their

budgets and do what needs to be done.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, to the first comment that the

Minister is less efficient than last year, if the Member thinks that bringing in

a revised grants program which is the envy of the rest of the country is being

inefficient, he should talk to some other Ministers across the country and find

out how they would like to emulate what we have done with our grants program.

So, I think the delay was well worthwhile. We are going to have a capital works

program announced shortly, the amount I cannot tell you because I have to deal

with the priorities as established by the regional offices. When I see those

priorities and the executive group and myself have a chance to finalize the

capital works -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: I cannot tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GULLAGE: Obviously I cannot tell you. I have not gone

to Government with a recommendation. We will be doing that shortly, Mr. Speaker,

and when we do the amount of capital works will be announced in the House.

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

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

same Minister. The Minister said in a ministerial statement a short while ago: I

want to assure athletes that sport is and will continue to be a high priority

with this administration. In view of the fact that the Minister, in the

budgetary estimates, shows that the capital grants expenditures for sport and

recreation in this Province is even less than last year, how can the Minister

stand by this statement that this administration is ranking sport as a high

priority?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I continue to be amazed,

amazed, amazed by the knowledge of the Budget that some Members opposite show.

If you were to look at the Budget and look at my department, look at recreation

specifically as you are alluding to, you will see that there is nothing

eliminated from the Budget. I do not think there are any cuts that I can

identify. In fact, we were able to retain the programs that were in place. We

continue to fund all the sports organizations as we have done in the past, the

three main sports bodies, our capital projects have been maintained in the

Budget, the winter games are in place for Labrador. So for anybody to suggest

that recreation has been hurt by this Budget obviously has not read the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the

Minister tell us why capital grants, capital not current, why capital grants

were reduced by just about $100,000? And can the Minister tell us how much of it

will be for new capital works for the next fiscal year, and how much of that

little over $1 million will be to honour ongoing financial commitments made in

previous years? New ones for next year and honour previous commitments, how

much?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I say to hon. Members on my right the question has been

asked, and I have said several times when a question is asked that hon. Members

do the courtesy to their own questioner for the Minister to answer that

question.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the amount identified in the

Budget for capital works is for ongoing projects, work that is in progress

throughout the municipalities in the Province, faced off against recreation and

sport. There is a program of capital works for smaller capital works, not the

major recreational regional facilities, that is a separate program that is under

review. When that is finalized, and that will be shortly, when that is finalized

a decision will be made on the amount of money faced off against smaller capital

projects throughout the Province. We also have a regional facilities program,

and that program is under the capital works that will be announced shortly when

it is finalized.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

confirmed that there is again no new capital works. I want to ask the Minister,

since he referred to the regional facilities program, when is the Minister going

to make the announcement that he committed to this House nearly a year ago, the

construction of two facilities a year for the next number of years? When is the

Minister going to make the announcement so that recreation committees in this

Province can get on with the work? When will the Minister announce it?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the regional recreation

facilities program is also financed under the municipal financing corporation

and any monies expended by the Province, any decision to expend monies on that

particular program if and when we decide to proceed, and if we decide to proceed

this year with facilities under that program, if Government makes that decision,

if it does, it will be announced at the time that capital works are announced

because it is all under the same financing program through the municipal

financing corporation as I explained earlier. When an announcement is made, it

simply indicates that we have made a commitment to expend the monies in the

forthcoming year. The actual dollars do not get put into the financing

corporation until the following year.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Yesterday I attended a meeting of 450 laid

off, unemployed shipyard workers in Marystown who were extremely frustrated by

the lack of support from the Provincial Government towards the Marystown

shipyard. They were exploring various avenues, Mr. Speaker, of what can happen

in the shipyard. Disappointed, I might say, that the Premier, nor the Minister

of Development nor the Minister of Transportation who had been invited to show,

did not show. I would now like to ask the Minister, I guess, responsible for The

Public Tendering Act, the Minister of Public Works, whether or not the Marystown

shipyard can proceed to have the contract for the construction of cranes for the

Cow Head facility awarded to them without calling tenders?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: I would imagine, Mr. Speaker. I will have to

check it out, but I would imagine, it is a Crown corporation. And as I

understand it Crown corporations are covered by The Public Tendering Act. And I

would assume that it would have to go through the same process.

PREMIER WELLS: It is also a Federal/Provincial agreement.

MR. GILBERT: It is also a Federal/Provincial agreement as

the Premier just mentioned. So I would imagine it would have to be.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a Special

Warrant for $3,961,800 to the Department of Health to provide additional funds

for the Medicare Commission.

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to

table the report of Exceptions to the Public Tendering Act for February, 1991.

And while I am up, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to table the annual

report of the C.A. Pippy Park Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual

report of the Department of Social Services for the year 1989-90.

Petitions

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I present a petition, and there are other

accompanying petitions within these three boxes-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RAMSAY: - representing the interests of approximately

6000 signatures of people from the district of LaPoile. With regards to the

petition I have chosen out of these to present, these letters, notes, and

drawings of students, and as well the other petitions included, I will read the

prayer of this petition of 127 elementary school students from the St. George's

Elementary School, Burnt Islands. The prayer of the petition reads: we the

undersigned representing the students of the St. George's Elementary School in

Burnt Islands strongly object to the recent cutbacks for our hospital in Port

aux Basques.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, these were all delivered to me

and also to various Government Departments, Ministers concerned, and also other

Members, and I have put them all together and brought them forth as a petition

because really the intent - and I have discussed it through leave of the House

in order to present it in this manner. There is the form of a letter also within

the three boxes here, and the letter is written to the Department of Health, and

it says, Dear Sir: I wish to express my total opposition to the proposed budget

cuts at the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre. I believe that the people of

Southwestern Newfoundland deserve a reasonable level of health care. What is

proposed by you will seriously jeopardize the quality of health care for me, my

family, and my community. We deserve better treatment from you and your

Government. I ask you to reconsider and change your decision. Sincerely,-- and

it is signed by up to 6000 residents of the district.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the petition itself and the

volume as it has been compounded here, I plan to have them compiled to represent

the different communities in the district. I do want to reiterate my own

situation within this. I am a Member within the Government caucus and, of

course, I do personally feel that I can best represent the interests of my

constituents who are so aggrieved by this decision by working within the

Government of which I am a part. I feel there is a place for a person within

government to make sure that he makes a good case, which has been presented, and

so ably presented by the Hospital Board in the form of a brief that was

presented to the Minister last week.

The brief was very, very thorough in its assessment of the

various medical information available to the Board of the Charles LeGrow Health

Centre, in what they concluded as being the services that should be offered at

the hospital. They have made this presentation to officials in the Department of

Health and the Department has given some consideration to allowing the Board a

period of time with which to make a good case on this. I have no fear that the

Board will be able to make such a case, and, of course, making sure that the

recommendations which were part of a study that was completed in 1988 are

brought to the attention of the Minister and others who make the decision. This

report was based on a list of surgical procedures to be carried out at the Dr.

Charles LeGrow Health Centre, which is something about which I have great

concern, as to what procedure should actually be performed at the hospital in

Port aux Basques.

Another one, as part of that particular study, was the

additional procedures that might be done in the future, privileges recommended

for positions, etc. I will not get into the actual details of this as it is

quite a lengthy document, and along with this has built the case to a point

where now it can be analyzed. I support the prayer and intent of the petition of

my constituents, but I also reserve the right to sit as a Member of the

Government in support of the Government in the general overall budgetary

process. And that is a very important factor for the people of my district,

because if I were to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame! Shame!

MR. RAMSAY: - take the efforts made by these people and

totally isolate myself from the process in which I am involved, this would do

nothing for the betterment of my constituents. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will

allow comments from the Opposition, and also from anyone here who would speak to

the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the

petition. The hospital in Port aux Basques is a new hospital. It is a hospital

which serves that part of southwest coast from LaPoile to Port aux Basques, and

also serves part of the St. Georges District, the Codroy Valley area. Mr.

Speaker, I do believe that hospital supports some 25,000 people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the moves by this Government will eliminate

all surgery in that hospital and the area hospitals which will have to take the

overflow from this particular hospital will either be Stephenville or Corner

Brook - most likely Corner Brook. And there is no way, Mr. Speaker, people can

drive, particularly with the cutbacks which - this Government has announced that

they will be cutting out surgery where you use local anaesthetic. This will mean

that there will be no deliveries, this will mean that the hospital will cease to

be a hospital, it will be merely a clinic, and that women who are having

children will have to go to Corner Brook, and wait in Corner Brook.

We have a problem. There were 5,000 or 6,000 people who

turned up at the stadium. People could not come from the Codroy Valley because

of wind conditions at Wreckhouse, which for the last century has been blowing

trains and trucks off the road there. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a very good

situation. But I have to say to the Member that he cannot have it both ways. He

cannot stand up and be the good guy in front of his constituents and then say

that he supports the Government as well. If he is supporting his constituents,

then he votes against this Budget. And if he supports the Government, then he

tells the people of Port aux Basques that he supports the Government on this. He

cannot have it both ways. He cannot play it one way at home and another way

somewhere else. He cannot do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says there is

widespread support for his budgetary measures. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have seen

petitions in this House from 14,000 people in the last two days, if that is

widespread support. Mr. Speaker, I do hope the Member gets his way, but I do not

like the way he is going about it. Because, Mr. Speaker, he is saying one thing

to the people in his District and another thing to the people here. He cannot

support the Government and support the hospital board and the people of his

District, so he has to go one way or the other; he supports it and votes against

the Budget.

I noticed, Mr. Speaker, that some of the Liberal Members in

Quebec are quite willing to stand on their feet and go against their Government

on the Budget they brought down. Not so the hon. Member. He is saying one thing

in Port aux Basques and another thing in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HODDER: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the hospital board and the

people in Port aux Basques have a good case. If you cut out that hospital in

Port aux Basques you may as well cut out about fifteen other hospitals across

the Province, because it takes in an area which is geographically isolated from

other parts of the Province. Mr. Speaker, there is no rhyme nor reason why the

major services in that hospital should be cut back.

Mr. Speaker, there are studies which show that hospital

should be upgraded, not downgraded. And I do hope that the Member is successful.

I know where his heart is, but I am saying that politically he cannot get away

with what he is trying to do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

for presenting that petition to the House of Assembly, and to assure him and the

people of the Port aux Basques area that in the spirit of openness which this

Government has been practicing, we will listen to the suggestions they are

making. I want to tell them, though, that what has happened in Port aux Basques

is part of a general overall restructuring program this Government has entered

into. This program we have entered into has been carefully thought out. We are

doing it strictly on the basis of health care needs, Mr. Speaker, but we are

also doing it, bearing in mind the fiscal restraints the Province finds itself

in.

This year the Province is spending $528 million in order to

maintain the hospital system alone within the Department of Health, Mr. Speaker.

That is the same figure that we are spending to pay the interest on the bills

which were run up by a bunch of drunken spenders, Mr. Speaker, who went out and

spent without giving any thought to where the money was coming from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Twenty-five million dollars on Sprung, $2,000

for stretch limousines, Mr. Speaker. That was the mentality which governed this

Province for eighteen years, and as a result of that, we are stuck today with

the credit card bills coming in, and we have to pay off those bills which were

run up, and at the same time try to maintain a health system, an education

system, Mr. Speaker, and everything else which goes with carrying on a

Government. The hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, from LaPoile has behaved quite

reasonably in this. He is fighting this within, and he is making his points

known to us. And there is a lot of give and take, Mr. Speaker. Unlike the Member

for Port au Port, he is not running back and forth across this floor every time

something comes up that he does not agree with, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: What a coward!

MR. DECKER: The hon. the Member for LaPoile does not have

to take any back seats to any Member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to comment on two points. There seems to be too much

commotion on both sides of the House while this petition is being presented,

number one. And number two, I would ask the Minister to keep his remarks to the

material allegations of the petition, please.

The hon. the Minister.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I get carried away, because

hypocrisy always gets me upset wherever I see it. Maybe it is my former

profession. I want to say to the people of Port aux Basques that this petition

will be given every consideration by the Government. And I want to tell them

they are indeed lucky and fortunate to have a Member of the stature of the

Member for LaPoile, who is quite willing to make their wishes known and to

dialogue with -

AN HON. MEMBER: Principled.

MR. DECKER: A principled Member who knows what his

political philosophy is. Thank you.

MR. SIMMS: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of privilege.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. I am actually reluctant to raise this

matter, but it has come to my attention in the last few moments, and I am not

sure if I should raise it with the Premier or with the Minister of Public Works,

who is responsible for the security and safety of the building and employees in

the building, but I understand that this morning there was a bomb threat or bomb

scare to the Premier's office. Is the Premier aware of that? And if so, if it

was accurate - the only reason I raise it is, if there was accuracy to it, we

wonder why the building was not evacuated or other precautions were not taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Minister does not know anything about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker,

there is no accuracy in it at all. And what the hon. Member has done is given

credence to something that should not have credence; he has spread a rumour by

dealing with it in this way. All he had to do, Mr. Speaker, is address it to me

privately and I would have told him privately, instead of creating this public

scare about an alleged bomb threat. I am sure if there was a bomb threat in the

Premier's office somebody would have told me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I do not know. Perhaps they would not

have.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: I would like to stand on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes on a point of privilege.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The point of

privilege, I will get right to it. I stand on a point of privilege because I

feel as a Member representing a district which is represented by an Opposition

Member that we are being discriminated against simply because my district is

represented by an Opposition Member.

In the House last night in debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: - I raised an issue about the layoff of people

in the Social Services office in my district. When I raised the issue that an

office manager had been laid off or given notice, the Minister's response, his

answer, his reason for doing it was simply because my district was a Tory

district, and I will read from Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

I was talking about workers in the office. I said: "The

unfortunate thing about it is that some of them got very little notice. Some of

them who are eliminated are eliminated, unfortunately, in areas where the work

load is increasing. St. Mary's office, where the manager has been told she's

gone..." - The Minister says: "A Tory district!"

So the Minister clearly stated that the reason why the

manager of the office in St. Mary's has now been told she has been relieved of

her duties, it was done simply because it was in a Tory district. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that shows blatant discrimination -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On the record! On the record!

MR. HEARN: - on behalf of the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member wants to speak, the

Chair is ready to rule. I am sure that if these matters were a point of

privilege we would have had many points of privilege in this House in the past.

It is surely not a point of privilege.-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of privilege to say that a

district is discriminated against in a debate. It might be a point of grievance,

but I do not see that it is a point of privilege.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a blatant point of privilege. That

is what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is a proper method for appealing the Speaker's

decision, and Members have that opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it is going to be done soon, I will

tell you that!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

private resolution.

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we want

to take the opportunity, on Private Member's Day, to discuss what we feel is a

crisis situation developing in this Province as it relates to health care. I

have proposed and moved the resolution, and the resolution is done very simply.

It is not in the normal format of most of the resolutions you see on the Order

Paper, with a large number of whereases and a large number of things to be

resolved. It is a very simple and straightforward resolution, but about a

complex matter. The resolution simply reads:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government to defer

the decisions announced in the Budget with respect to the hospitals at Bell

Island, Bonavista, Springdale, Baie Verte, Port aux Basques, Bonne Bay,

Brookfield, Old Perlican, Placentia, Burgeo, St. Lawrence and Come By Chance,

and that Government conduct an independent review of these decisions.

So, Mr. Speaker, and Members, all we are looking for and all

we are asking for is a very simple resolution of this House to say that the

Government should, on the one hand, defer the announcements made in the Budget

as it relates to health care cuts, and secondly, to conduct an independent

assessment of the beds and of the systems that were used to implement those bed

cuts announced in the Budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why have we chosen to use our Private

Members' Day to bring in a health care resolution? We do it because we are

extremely concerned, because an awful lot of people in this Province - I think

the Member for Port aux Basques today presented a petition with 6000 names, and

yesterday someone presented a petition with 8000 names. That's 14,000 names in

two days, two of the largest petitions ever presented in this House. Yesterday

we had over 1000 people here in the lobby who were very concerned about health

care in the Placentia area of this Province. Sometimes I hear on the Open Line

shows, and you hear it in rebuttals from Members opposite, that it is only

Members of the Opposition who are concerned, it is the Members of the Opposition

who are trying to create a crisis. If that were true, if we were only here

taking care of our vested interests, for instance to be re-elected personally or

to be re-elected as a Government, then obviously most persons could say that

this would be rather a spurious resolution that we brought in to waste the time

of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, such is not the case. I think the proof is

very obvious to everyone who choses to listen, that there is a pending health

care crisis in this Province and that an awful lot of individuals are concerned

who do not have a vested interest in being elected, who do not have a vested

interest in either the individual politicians or the political parties

concerned. They are simply interested in the health care system of this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, why should they be concerned? In this Province,

and again asking the Government to defer the decisions they have made, we are

looking at the closure of 438 acute care beds, we are talking layoffs of 900 or

more people in the health care system, we are talking about funding that went

from 11.3 per cent last year, supposedly part of a long-term plan, that dropped

back to 3.6 per cent this year and to subsequent layoffs and bed closures. Mr.

Speaker, there has to be a concern by anybody involved in the health care

system, and there is certainly a concern involved by any of the families of the

sick of this Province.

When you look at the supposed long-term health care plan

brought in in 1989 based on a bed study that was done in 1986 and a large Royal

Commission that was done in 1984, then obviously there has to be some concern as

to whether these recommendations are being dealt with in a fair and equitable

manner, whether there is some hanky-panky politically by Members opposite to

make sure that they do not take any more political heat than they have to.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, the important part and the concern is,

and we will try to show Members opposite today why they should vote in favour of

this resolution, is the fact that we do not believe that the bed study is really

the basis for the bed closures as announced by the Minister of Health, that

there is a lot of manipulation of the bed study itself, and that there is a lot

of concern. Now, Members opposite will continue to say, as the Minister of

Health has been trying to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that

because we cut 1000 people out of the health care system, because we closed 438

beds, because we reduced funding by over 8 per cent from one year to the next,

then we have given you a better health care system. That is what the Minister of

Health wants the people of this Province to believe. He is trying to say that

our thought process that there is a crisis is one that is only in the minds of

Members of the Opposition and it is not in the people's minds.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that certainly from the

constituents I represent, from the people we saw in this Legislature yesterday,

and from the petitions we have seen, the crisis is certainly real and not merely

perceived. And based on assumption, Mr. Speaker, we want this House to defer the

cutbacks until an independent assessment is done.

Mr. Speaker, one of the basic social contracts that the

Government has to do - yesterday, I suppose, in listening to the Premier and the

Minister of Health I really wonder what the functions of Government are

sometimes, and that is, why do people get together to become a society? To

protect the weak. To protect the sick. To take care of the people in society who

could not possible take care of themselves. But when I look at what is happening

in this Province, when I see what this Minister and the Minister of Finance and

the Premier are about to do to our health care system, I cannot be anything but

concerned, and I am sure that when you listen to the professionals in

Newfoundland, again as I say, if it were just Members of the Opposition it would

be one thing, but when you see the Hospital and Nursing Home Association say

that they cannot accommodate the cuts proposed and implemented by the Government

without a significant impact on programs and service, a significant disruption

in another case.

Mr. Speaker, if there are significant disruptions in the

health care system by the group of the health care professionals who are

responsible for running that system, I mean that is just not the Opposition

crying foul, in this case there are some real concerns. Mr. Speaker, that social

contract that a Government has a responsibility to protect the innocent, the

weak and the uneducated in our society, I think, has been severely lacking in

this Government. They seem to have forgotten one of the main functions that

Government has.

In the health care system of this Province, the old cottage

hospitals we have which are now substantially being downgraded in many ways, are

just an insurance policy. I mean, I have to laugh almost at the Minister of

Health saying the reasons we are raising all these concerns is that we want to

have a Health Science Complex in everybody's backyard, in every harbour. That

obviously is not true and it is not our concern and it is not our intention. We

understand that Government has financial problems. We just think that they have

gone way to far in the health care sector in trying to solve their health care

problems.

Certainly in one of the cases yesterday where the Minister of

Health was saying we have to have - you go from a cottage hospital system which

is an insurance policy type of approach, it is not meant to give you everything

you want, but it is basically saying to people that look, at least if something

happens there is some kind of a mechanism, there is some security blanket here

to take care of you. What do the people of Burgeo do when you close down all of

their acute care beds? They cannot walk across LeMarchant Road from St. Clare's

and go to the Grace, they cannot go from the Grace in to the Health Sciences

Complex. If you are hurt in Burgeo and there is no acute care beds there, then

you obviously have to suffer in pain longer than you certainly should have to.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the health care beds itself, we

are very, very concerned about the manipulation of the bed study. We do not

believe that the Minister is following the bed study as closely as he should. If

he is listening to his professional advisors, then we really have great concerns

as to who is giving advice to the Minister of Health. We have even greater

concerns as to who is giving health advice to the Government. And we suspect the

Minister of Finance has more to say about health advice than the Minister of

Health has.

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in the House the Minister of

Health said why we are asking for this deferral and this reassessment of the bed

study - the Minister of Health himself said 'that times change. So we do send in

people to make sure that we do not make a mistake because the health care system

is so important that we do not want to make any mistakes as we restructure it.'

That is a quote from the Minister of Health. But if the Minister of Health says

that we send people in to examine and appraise and assess before we close down,

how was it possible that five health professionals from the Minister of Health's

own Department were supposedly in Placentia on Budget Day talking about a new

hospital when the Minister of Finance was in this House saying that, in effect,

health care in the Placentia area is going to be significantly reduced.

Now either health care professionals are giving the advice to

this Government on health care or the physical advisers are giving health care

advice, and we on this side of the House and many in the Province are very, very

alarmed and concerned that the health message is not getting through to the

decision-makers. And in one case here the crisis, certainly in the Placentia

area, was evident yesterday when you look at the number of people from the

Placentia area who were here, who were saying: We are concerned. We are

concerned about the downgrading, we are concerned about what is going to happen

in the future.

The Minister also said a few days ago that the bed study was

basically the basis for his new plan, but he also said the bed study was done

some time ago. So all we are asking on this side of the House today and from

Members opposite, and hopefully they will be able to vote with their conscience

rather than as some people will do with the Liberal Party and the Liberal

Government, as some people have already said in presenting petitions, that they

are going to stick with the caucus rather than stick with the people who elected

them which I suspect will be a very short-term political gain for any of those

members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. POWER: But, Mr. Speaker, in the case here I can

recount several incidents in this bed study where the bed study is simply not

being followed. In the Brookfield Hospital, for instance, in the Budget document

it says: will have its level of in-patient activity reduced while planning

continues. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a real concern of everybody in the

Placentia area, in Burgeo, in any place where this planning structure is

supposed to be changed. The planning is not done, the planning is taking place

but at the same time you are reducing the level of services that they presently

have. Now what happens in the interim, you say to certain people in Brookfield

and in other parts of the Province that you have services now, you may have

those same services two or three years from now but you are not going to have

them in the interim, that is what the people of Placentia believe this

Government is saying, that we are going to give you back the ten acute care beds

that were recommended but you are not going to get them for a couple of years.

Now, what happens in a couple of years?

Mr. Speaker, it is almost like this Government is saying:

cancel your health care policy for the next three or four years, you do not need

it, you are not going to get sick. I mean how many persons would do that? If you

were told: look, do not put fire insurance on your house for the next three

years because you are not going to have a fire; that is what those cottage

hospitals systems are for. When I look at the manipulation of the bed study,

where it is not being followed as recommend by the Department of Health and

again, we have a very real problem on this side of the legislature, of getting

honest answers and honest replies from the Minister of Health.

We are finding out through press releases when the Boards

finally make the decision, that the Minister of Health and the Premier cannot

hide, they have to have made the decisions, they cannot blame it on doctors.

When I hear the Minister of Health saying yesterday that he is not going to take

responsibility if a doctor sends somebody away from a hospital, it is a doctor's

fault; but if the doctor has no beds and has no support staff, then I think the

Minister of Health has to take some responsibility in those kind of health

situations.

Mr. Speaker, in the bed study itself, Placentia, the bed

study is here, I have a copy - I suppose the Minister has seen it but I suspect

he does not pay much attention to it - in Placentia, they were supposed to go

from thirty-two to ten acute care beds, a reduction of twenty-two. Now, they may

get, according to the Minister, one to four holding beds which are not really

acute care beds. In Baie Verte, they were supposed to go from thirty-one to

twenty-five acute care beds, they are now going to have their hospital closed

with maybe five holding beds. Now, is that following the bed study? How can

someone say that the professional advice of the Department, professional advice

of health care people are saying: in Baie Verte's case, go from thirty-one to

twenty- five and you have gone from thirty-one basically to zero with five

holding beds, are you listening to your health care professionals. That is why

we are asking today on this side of the House for a deferment of the decisions

that were made and an impartial reassessment of the health care situation in

this Province.

In Brookfield, they are going from thirty to ten, but they

may be allowed to keep fifteen; In Springdale, they were supposed to keep ten

acute care beds, now they have zero; who gave the advice to the Minister of

Finance and the Premier and the Cabinet to close all the beds in Springdale,

close all the beds in Baie Verte, who did that? It was not the health care

professionals who did the study, so obviously it has to be somebody else. In

Port aux Basques, Mr. Speaker, another example, they were supposed to go from

forty beds to twenty beds, now they are down to maybe ten or twelve. In Burgeo,

they were supposed to go from eighteen to six, now they are down to zero.

If the bed study is the basis for the health care

restructuring which the Minister of Health has said it is, then how can he have

a restructured system that pays little or no attention to his bed study? Now, it

cannot be both ways, it has to be one or the other; either the bed study is the

basis for the restructuring or it is not, and that is why again, we are asking

for the impartial reassessment of where bed closures and how they were

allocated, because we suspect, Mr. Speaker, that it was not done on the basis of

the bed study, it was not done on the basis of good health advice, it was done

on the basis, possibly on some political advice, possibly on fiscal advice from

the Minister of Finance's Department but certainly not from the Minister of

Health's own officials.

Mr. Speaker, again I have to say that the real concern comes

not just from the Members of the Opposition but from a large segment of this

population to whom somebody will have to listen. I saw an editorial here from

The Western Star, that says: one of the Ministers, the Justice Minister

representing that part of the Province, better soon start listening to some

people because his reaction that the Budget was well received shows he has not

been talking to ordinary Newfoundlanders and ordinary people and I suspect that

very few of this Cabinet has been talking to ordinary Newfoundlanders.

It is no trouble to get big business interested in

Newfoundland, it is no trouble to get the Board of Trade, it is no trouble to

get the Chamber of Commerce to say to cut back on health, when the vast majority

of those individuals can send their children out of the Province for qualified

health care, if they want to, and many of them are doing it now. So, Mr.

Speaker, it is the poor people in this Province who cannot send their children

out of this Province to get health care and who have to suffer the consequences

of the mistakes made by the Minister of Health and by his Cabinet colleagues.

So I just want to let it be known that we on this side are

not simply defending the jobs in the health care sector, we are not encouraging

Government to spend money they have not got. We are saying there has to be a

better way to balance your Budget than balance it on the backs of the sick of

this Province.

I heard somebody call on the open line show the other day and

say that hospitals were simply another make work project. I can only say to that

individual that he has not visited very many hospitals lately, that there is not

a vast number of people, there certainly is not 1,000, there aren't 300 nurses

in the health care system who sit around all day moving paper from one side of a

desk to another. The health care system is already understaffed and overworked,

and I will tell you it is going to get an awful lot worse with this system.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding my introductory remarks I just

want to say something else about the public input of how the health care system

was done. We have heard a great deal in this Province of how the public has to

have input, the public has to have some way of getting their message across to

the Government. I have serious concerns, at least in these health care cuts, of

whether the democratic process works. When I see Opposition and Government -

Opposition Members I can understand, but when I see Government backbenchers

saying that they did not know up to Budget day that their hospitals were going

to be significantly downgraded, I can only say how does the process work when a

Government backbencher representing 8,000 or 9,000 Newfoundlanders has no way to

get his message across to the Minister of Health and to the Premier that there

is concern in his area about downgrading health?

And I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that last year in this House

we saw a tremendous backlash by the Premier and many of his colleagues when he

saw a constitutional process in this country, supposedly a process that went

aground because it was all done in secret, it was all done in private. The

people had no input, the people had no say. But now I see a health care system

in this Province where there is not any public input, where Government

backbenchers cannot even get their messages across to the Government, where

things are done in secret, they are done without consultation. I can only say to

the Premier and to his Cabinet colleagues that if that is the process that was

fair for Meech Lake, that it was fair to have public input, if it was not fair

to do everything behind closed doors, then how can it be fair to do to the

health care system what you have done behind closed doors without listening to

your own MHAs, without listening to interest groups, without listening to your

professional health care consultants? I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that

somewhere along the way this whole system has gone off the rails.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, just let me say that all we are

asking for today is a deferment of the decisions that have been made. We believe

there is a crisis in the health care system. We believe it is going to get

worse, and we are asking this Government to do what it did in Meech Lake:

postpone, defer the decision, get some public input, listen to your own people,

your own advisors, and maybe then we will be able to have a careful,

independent, re-assessment, re-evaluation of the bed closures that have been

announced in this Province. Mr. Speaker, it will be very interesting to see if

Members opposite can concur with simply a deferment of the decisions made and a

re-assessment of the bed closures that have been announced. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Premier I

would like to welcome to the House of Assembly on behalf of hon. Members, 21

by their teachers Bruce Vallis, Don Lawrence and Mark Courtney.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before I address the comments

of the hon. Member I would just like to take a couple of minutes, with the

indulgence of the House, to elaborate further on the comment made by the

Opposition House Leader about the alleged bomb threat in my office. I knew that

if there had been a bomb threat I would have been advised of it. However, over

the past few weeks a lady, who is a patient in the Waterford Hospital, calls and

claims that she is an undercover police agent and she calls fairly regularly.

Whenever she can get access to a phone she dials the number directly and one

time she will report this and another time she will report something else, and

she is known to the people. When they know and identify who it is, they do not

give it any attention because she is a sick lady in the Waterford Hospital. Now,

that lady does this - I think it is the fourth call from that lady. So it is not

a bomb threat, and I do not want people to believe, generally, in the Province

that there are bomb threats in this building and we are not paying any attention

to them.

I say again, if any hon. Members become aware of any

information like that, it is best handled if you ask me discreetly. I will give

you honestly, exactly what it is. If you are not satisfied then and you want to

raise it in the House, by all means, but rather than do this and create this

kind of public attention to it I suggest to you that it is best to address it to

me directly and I will deal with it honestly with the hon. Member and inform him

fully.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did not know this morning.

PREMIER WELLS: This morning, no. And they do not tell me

when that lady calls. because they know enough to discount it, it is not of any

consequence. They know the lady is sick and they know whenever she gets anywhere

near a phone she calls and pretends to be an undercover police agent and she has

discovered this new problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, the policemen stay on top of all

these things. We do not let anything go on toward. But when it is that kind of a

thing we do not pursue it, and it is best not to create undue scares in this

way.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes to speak to

this resolution. I do not want to say a great deal about it. The resolution is,

`Be it resolved that the House urge the Government to defer decisions announced

in the Budget.' I can tell the House at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot

agree to defer decisions announced in the Budget. That amounts to a complete

backtrack of the Government's Budget and we cannot do that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, hon. Members are aware of the circumstances

in which we found ourselves in this Province, and I do not need to go back and

reiterate those; they were well stated by the Minister of Finance on Budget Day

and they have been restated by quite a number of people since that time. I do,

however, draw hon. Member's attention to Newfoundland being no different than

the rest of the country. Here is the headline today in the Globe and Mail:

`Wages frozen for 450,000 Quebecers. The Quebec Government have announced that

they have frozen the wages...', and here is what they have announced they have

done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: No, it is not. `Under Mr. Johnson's plan

unionized public sector workers would have their collective agreements extended

to the end of 1992 at the present wage rates.' That is frozen, Mr. Speaker.

Ontario is now - I read the report in the newspaper the other day - looking at a

Budget deficit for this current fiscal year that ends in March of something in

excess of $3 billion. Having budgeted for, I believe, a $50 million surplus, a

deficit that will be in excess of $3 billion, and perhaps up to $3.5 billion in

this current fiscal year. Now by comparison we had a $117 million deficit.

Ontario has roughly about seventeen times our population, so that they are 50

per cent worse off again than we were. Quebec is in a similar boat. I was

looking at news reports in the Evening Telegram today where New Brunswick is

talking about dealing with its $275 million deficit. So, Mr. Speaker, this is

not unusual or peculiar to Newfoundland. The newspapers and people in Ontario

are talking about the prospect of a $6 or $7 billion deficit in the coming

fiscal year. Rich Ontario is going to be in that position, so they have to deal

effectively with these problems as the Government had to deal effectively with

the problems. The country as a whole has to deal effectively with the problems.

And the approach of the Government was not to go and not seek

advice. Essentially this is calling on us to seek independent advice, is the

wording of this resolution I believe - to defer the decisions announced in the

Budget with respect to these named hospitals and conduct an independent review

of these decisions. Well, I tell the Members of the House, that is what we have

been doing for four months, when you kept telling us we should make the decision

and rush at it. But we decided to wait and do it on an intelligent and

fair-minded basis and hear from people involved. We conducted such an

independent review and had the opinions of the people directly involved in the

delivery of health care throughout the Province. That is precisely what we have

been doing for the last four months, and doing it very well and very fairly, Mr.

Speaker. So there is no need to defer any decison in the Budget.

The Minister has also made a statement. He made it in the

House, I believe. I heard him make it on TV, and I do not know whether I added

to it or detracted from it, but I reaffirmed that it was my view, as well, when

the media asked me about it. If any group in the Province wants to make a

presentation to the Government with respect to any decision that we have made,

we will hear that presentation. And if we are convinced that we have made a

mistake, we are not too big to stand up and say we have made a mistake. We have

done that in the past. We have corrected decisions. And we will do it again. But

I do not want to lead people to believe that all you have to do is complain and

the decision is going to change. That is not so. The decision will be maintained

unless we are satisfied clearly that what we have done is a mistake. And if it

is a mistake and we are satisfied that it is, then we are not so big that we

cannot stand up and say so, and we will. And I re-affirm what the Minister has

said in that regard. But we cannot stop the budget process, Mr. Speaker, as this

resolution would ask us to do, to "urge the Government to defer" implementation

of the decisions respecting this segment of the health sector budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that individual MHAs on both sides

of the House are concerned with the decision, and concerned with the impact it

has on their respective districts. I understand and appreciate that. I also

understand and appreciate that it is the responsibility of Members who are

elected to this House not simply to consider in detail the issues that are

brought before the House and exercise their judgement on it. It is not simply to

vote blindly for the Government, to support the Government, or it is not simply

to vote blindly against the Government. Amongst their other duties I acknowledge

and accept that Members of this House have a responsibility to ensure that the

concerns of their constituents are brought to the attention of the Government

and brought to the attention of the whole House and the whole Province, by means

of a debate in this House, and by means of expressing their opinion in this

House.

And I have no doubt that Members on this side of the House,

as the Member for LaPoile did today, will stand and express his concern and his

view and his opinion, and perhaps the opinion of his district, that what the

Government did with respect to the hospital in Port aux Basques, he expressed

doubts about. And I understand that. That does not mean that he can vote against

the Government on its Budget. It does not mean that he can be expected to do

that. It does not mean that he has any less concern for his district or her

district if they stand and say well, I disagree with the approach the Government

has taken on a particular hospital, nevertheless I support the Government's

overall approach.

And to put down this kind of resolution is really unworthy of

hon. Members. There is no basis at all in which the Government can defer these

decisions in the manner requested. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, because we

have already had the independent assessment to which this refers. And in the

light of the Minister's undertaking that if a case is made out that we have

indeed made a mistake, we are not so big that we cannot admit that we have made

a mistake and seek to change it.

Mr. Speaker, another point I want to make is this

Government's commitment to health. To listen to the Members on the other side

and to listen to some of the public sector unions you would think that this

Government is cutting back on the great health programme that the Members

opposite put in place when they were there, that we are cutting back on their

commitment to health, that our commitment is less than theirs, that we reduced

the portion of the public expenditure on health from what that government did

when they were in power, that we have cut it down. Now, Mr. Speaker, just look

at the reality. And I will tell you the reality.

Here is the budget for 1988. You can identify it by the cover

(Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, if people will look at

Exhibit 9, they will find there a detailed breakdown of how much was spent on

the social sector, the general governmental sector, and the resource sector. And

you will find if you compare the two, this year's Budget and the 1988 budge, the

last budget of that former government, their commitment to the social sector

compared to ours. It is approximately the same - 64.1 and 63.8; give or take,

not very much difference.

Now look at health in particular. It is spelled out in the

social sector. Under the social sector they spent 23.5 per cent of the total

governmental expenditures on health - 23.5 per cent. Now what did we do? If you

listen to what they say, you would think we cut it back to 18 per cent. No, Mr.

Speaker. What we did in this year was increase it - 24.8 per cent of the total

expenditure is spent on health. You do not measure a government's commitment to

a particular segment of society or responding to a social need by measuring

cutbacks or management in any one year, you measure it by the total effort that

is made in the whole of government services. And we, Mr. Speaker, have committed

24.8 per cent of the total government expenditure this year to health care. And

if we were only to have made the same level of effort for health as the former

Government committed in their last budget, if we were to have committed only

that level, we would have reduced the health care sector by another $40 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts, not the fiction you

hear coming from the other side, and the suggestion that this Government is

insensitive to health care and social needs in the Province. Look at the reality

of it and you will see the kind of effort this Government has been making.

The reality is that the Opposition are trying desperately to

find something to enable them to claw up out of the bottom of the barrel, where

they are. And they will attack anything. I do not really see any real concern

for the people of this Province. If they were really concerned for the people of

this Province, what they would be addressing, as the Government is addressing,

is the overall concern, the overall financial situation in the Province, and

what portion of the funds available to us will we assign to health care or

education or resource sector or others. And our commitment to health is very

clear. We committed 24.8 per cent of our budget, where they committed 23.5 per

cent of theirs. Just about a quarter of the Budget is committed to providing for

health care.

Mr. Speaker, I plead with the Members of the Opposition to

put the interest of the people of this Province first. Because it is not the

Government we are talking about, bear that in mind. The Government gains nothing

by reducing or increasing health care expenditures. It is the people of this

Province. Those expenditures can only be paid for by Government putting its

hands into the people's pockets, either to take the money directly to pay the

expenses as they are incurred, or to pay the interest and service the debt that

you incur by borrowing against the future. And that is unfair.

We have to come closer to paying our own way without

burdening the future of this Province with debt that we created to pay our

operating costs. That would be an unconscionable legacy to our people. We are

not prepared, as the former government was prepared, to have in place a series

of deficit budgets one year after another and put an ever-increasing mortgage on

the people of this Province without paying off any of the debt.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of individual MHAs. I

expect them to press their concerns. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the

MHAs on this side of the House, they were not treated preferentially. That was

the way the former government did it. We treat people fairly. The hon. Member

spoke about MHAs on this side of the House not having advance notice of what was

going to be done. Mr. Speaker, a government that provided advance notice to

government for providing Cabinet leaks. We talked generally about our policy and

had an endorsement of our general policy to manage the affairs of this Province

in a sound and proper basis, but no specifics of the Budget were divulged to

anybody. If it became known that we divulged a specific of the Budget to a

Member on this side of the House, the hon. Member opposite, instead of praising

it would be up calling for the Minister's resignation. And that is what we would

be hearing from him.

So, Mr. Speaker, we act properly, and we still get this kind

of criticism. I, nevertheless, understand and appreciate the concerns of MHAs on

both sides of the House. I can appreciate their having to do it. I appreciate

the genuineness of the concerns they have for the people in their districts, and

the impact it will have in employment terms, in health care terms and in other

ways on their individual districts. And I am not surprised to hear them express

those concerns. But, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to express great confidence in the

MHAs who sit on this side of the House. They have expressed those concerns to

us, and I accept their expression of concern. They have expressed it with

dedication for their districts, and with determination to try and make sure that

whatever can be done to promote the interest of their districts has been done.

Every last one of them sitting in this House has done that, and I appreciate

that and know they have to do it. But all of them, Mr. Speaker, have expressed

overall confidence in the way the Government is running this Province, including

its general budgetary management.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the Members on this side of

the House will vote against this resolution. First because it is not necessary,

we did the full independent assessment in the last four months. That is what was

being done. We have been operating on the basis of using the bed study as a

guideline, but the bed study is not an absolute that is cast in stone and can't

ever be changed. We take into account representation from all areas of the

Province and all people who are involved in the delivery of health care in the

Province and make whatever adjustments are appropriate to carry out the kind of

health policy that we have developed.

No, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not necessary, and I have

no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that hon. Members on this side of the House will speak

very clearly when the time comes to vote on it and indicate strongly their

support for the Government's basic management of this Province, even at the same

time that they may be in disagreement with a particular decision for a

particular district or their particular district. I understand that, Mr.

Speaker, but this is not necessary. It serves no purpose. The work has already

been done. The study has already been done and the Government must get on with

the proper financial management of this Province, but always subject to the

comment of the Minister of Health who said very clearly, 'show us on genuine

terms that something we are doing is wrong and we will make the appropriate

adjustment.' But I do not want people to believe that all you have to do is

complain and a change will be made, because that is not so, Mr. Speaker. I

support what the Minister of Health has said and I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker,

that other Members on this side of the House do as well. Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well if I

have ever seen somebody begging and pleading with his Members to fall in line,

well then I just saw a typical example of what it is like. No other reason did

the Premier stand to speak to this resolution today except for to beg and plead

for Members like the Member for La Poile and the Member representing Placentia

and other Members to get up and vote against this resolution.

Let me comment first of all, Mr. Speaker, on some of the

Premier's statements. He said starting off, 'We are not the only Province in

trouble, we know that. Quebec announced that their wages are frozen.' Frozen,

yes, but not rolled back. That is the difference - quite a difference. He

mentioned that the Ontario deficit will be $3 billion. That is not surprising

knowing that they have an NDP Government. That does not surprise any of us. The

Premier cannot take the heat. However, the Premier says, 'the resolution calls

for an independent review.' He says, 'we don't need an independent review. That

is what we have been doing for the last four months.'

Let me ask some of the gentlemen over there: with whom has he

been doing his independent review, because he certainly has not been doing it

with some of you. If the Premier made the decision to phase out, shut down,

change the status of hospitals around the Province, who gave him the advice? Who

did the review? Number one, the process that is announced does not conform with

the 1986 bed study, so it had nothing to do with that. He did not consult with

the people from the areas who are affected. He did not even consult with the

elected representatives. So, who is doing the independent review? Maybe I should

tell you. Maybe it is a committee of doctors in this Province who are secretly

advising the Premier in relation to health matters, going over the heads of his

Cabinet, going over the head of the Minister of Health, going over the heads of

the elected representatives and advising the Premier as to the process that he

should take which eventually led to having hospitals in four major centres - St.

John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Gander - and very little else anywhere

else in the Province. Maybe the Member should talk to the Premier about that

major plan that is in the background.

The Premier then goes on to say: decisions will be

maintained. We will wait until tomorrow. Tomorrow will prove whether decisions

will be maintained or not. And I understand that the Member for Placentia and

the health care committee out there will be meeting with the Minister of Health.

And we will see tomorrow whether decisions will be maintained or not. The people

from the area showed their displeasure here yesterday, the Member showed his

displeasure and he stood up for his people by going out to meet them, by

presenting the petition on their behalf, by supporting that petition, and we

will see tomorrow whether or not the Premier will stand by his comment that

decisions will be maintained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of

noise in the -

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

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: And then the Premier gets into his pleading.

And he says: it is okay for his Members to vote against the resolution because

they agree with the process. So consequently, it is okay for them to vote

against the resolution. To vote against what? Well, let's have a look at the

resolution.

It says:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government

to defer decisions announced in the Budget with respect to the hospitals in Bell

Island - represented by the hon. Liberal Member; Bonavista, represented by a

Liberal Member; Springdale, represented by a good Tory Member; Baie Verte, also

by a Tory Member; Port aux Basques - we saw a major petition today well

presented by the Member for Port aux Basques; Bonne Bay, once again represented

by a Cabinet Minister; Brookfield, represented by a Liberal Member; Old

Perlican, represented by a Liberal Member; Placentia, represented by a Liberal

Member; Burgeo, where last night they certainly showed their displeasure - I am

sure the Minister is extremely concerned today about what is happening down

there; St. Lawrence, represented by a Tory Member; and of course Come By Chance,

represented by Your Honour-

MR. EFFORD: Only one Tory district?

MR. HEARN: Three Tory districts. We do not have

hospitals.

MR. EFFORD: You're some lucky.

MR. HEARN: -and conduct an independent review. All we are

asking is: take your time, conduct an independent review. Now here is where the

Premier falls down in his argument to you not to vote for this resolution. If

you vote against this resolution - and the Minister of Finance says - you know,

forget it. If anybody in this House should not even raise his head - and I

notice now he has put it down again - it is the Minister of Finance. The

Minister of Finance should take early leave and head off for Florida somewhere,

and do us all a favour. He should have done it three weeks ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: Three years ago.

MR. HEARN: Three years ago, and saved us all a lot of

problems.

But, Mr. Speaker, the resolution is just urging Government to

defer - not to change, to defer - decision making until an independent review is

conducted. The Premier's only defence to his own Members to whom he was pleading

- he was not talking to us - the Premier was standing up and pleading to his own

Members to vote against the resolution, a resolution which asks for deferral

until an independent review can be done to assess what really should be done in

the health care sector in the Province. His argument that an independent review

was done does not hold water, and you do not have to ask anyone except

yourselves. And if the Members certainly stand and vote against this resolution,

then you are saying to your own constituents: we could not care less.

All we are asking for is deferral and an independent study.

That is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: The Premier said we cannot afford it. The

amount of money involved here for a six month delay will not make any

difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Some other points, Mr. Speaker, that we should

make. The Premier said there is a major increase in the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: It is extremely hard to be heard, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The level of conversation to my left is becoming unbearable.

And I suggest to hon. Members that if they want to carry on their meetings they

could go outside the Chamber.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the

people should listen and hear some facts, not just believe the Premier every

time he speaks. The people of the Province have long since learned that they

can't believe the Premier.

But the Premier says: major increases in the Budget compared

to the time the Tories ran the government. Let us have a look at some of the

major increases in the Department of Health budget and let's see where they are.

Just run through some of the headings.

Minister's office, major increase - the Premier is right -

the Minister's office, $222,000, up from $208,000 last year - major increase in

the Minister's office. Executive support is down. The workers, the people who do

the real work, down. Administrative support and general administration, down -

people who do the work. Health policy and planning - now there is a place where

investment should take place - down. Programme review and planning, down. Health

policy and planning, up, but up in which way? Up in relation to a major increase

in professional services. Outside consultants.

MR. SIMMS: Aha!

AN HON. MEMBER: Misleading the House (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Dental support -

AN HON. MEMBER: He's reading his speech.

MR. HEARN: Reading from the budget. Budget Speech. Ask

the Minister of Finance. He can get up in few minutes. When I finish, the

Minister of Finance will get up and explain all the increases.

AN HON. MEMBER: Misleading the House.

MR. HEARN: Dental support, down, almost wiped out, dental

support.

MR. SIMMS: Old Perlican, gone.

MR. HEARN: Administration. And in relation to the

administration, the public health, in the public health sector, down.

Consultative services, up. Community health services, something that affects all

of us, down. Emergency transportation - this is the interesting one - emergency

transportation services, road ambulance, up. Why up? Emergency and

transportation services generally, up. Why up? Because of the lack of services

provided at the different hospitals in local areas, they have to be transported

to other centres.

So we see where the increases are. The increases are created

because of the inefficiencies -

MR. HEWLETT: Crash and carry!

MR. HEARN: - of the Government. Crash and carry, exactly.

We have drug subsidization, up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Misleading the House.

MR. HEARN: Memorial University, Faculty of Medicine,

down. Now, we can go on. You know, coordination and development, down. Health

and social agencies, down. So we go on to the things that affect community

health care, the things that affect every man, woman and child out there, the

Budget, down, despite the fact that we have a 5.7 per cent inflation rate, down

from last year. Increase in consultation, road transportation, Minister's

office. So that is why the budget in the Department of Health increased.

Let's look, Mr. Speaker, at some of the specifics in relation

to the resolution, why we are asking that an independent review take place so

that decisions that will be made will be fair to the Member for LaPoile, fair to

the Member for Burgeo, fair to the Member for Grand Bank - St. Lawrence.

MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible) fair now!

MR. HEARN: Fair to the Member for Placentia. Now the

Minister of Transportation says: fair now. So the Minister of Transportation now

agrees that what is happening in Burgeo is fair, and the Minister is on the

record as saying that he agrees with what is happening in Burgeo. So we will let

the people of Burgeo know that the Minister has no problem with what is

happening. If it is not broke, he said, don't fix it. So the Minister is tagging

along on the Premier's coattails and he is going to vote against the resolution,

undoubtedly.

So the people of Trepassey: it will take them two hours to

get to hospital the best of times, and Trepassey barrens in the wintertime is

not a pleasant place to be, as the Member well knows. And consequently if there

is any rough weather at all, it could take them several hours to get to

hospital.

And we have not got a hospital in the area. In fact, we are

probably more remote than any other part of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your argument?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Exactly. So what the Member for St. John's

South is now saying, is that, well they have not got a hospital in Trepassey, so

then why not take all the rest of them? Why does anybody else need a hospital?

That is exactly what the Member is saying, that is exactly what you said. So, he

said: what is your argument? Your argument is that if Trepassey can do without

it, then everybody else can do without it. We do have a good clinic staffed by

the best medical doctor in this Province, and that is a big help. Staffed by the

best medical doctor in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: The hospital in Placentia, being the one that

affects me directly, is having its status reduced to that of a clinic. Chronic

care made available in a few years, and they said perhaps some beds in the area,

maybe, a couple of years time. The Member for Placentia posed a very interesting

question yesterday when he presented his petition. Because if we need ten acute

care beds right now, if we are going to need ten acute care beds two years down

the road, why in the interim, between now and 1993, don't we need ten acute care

beds? That is an exceptionally good question. Now, maybe that question will be

answered tomorrow and maybe the Minister of Health will give him his ten acute

care beds. I hope he does. Then I hope he is prepared to give them back to

Burgeo, back to Old Perlican, back to Port aux Basques, and back to everybody

else.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: If I were the Minister of Social Services I

would not open my mouth. He put his foot in his mouth last night. The Minister

of Social Services clearly indicated last night why certain decisions were made,

because the people affected were in Tory districts. Here we cannot say the same

thing, here you have a dictator being advised by outside consultants, bypassing

the advice of his own people. It is a shame, it is a terrible shame that it is

happening, and once again do not take our word for it, just go talk to your

backbenchers. Talk to your backbenchers. Ask them how much they were consulted.

Turn around Minister of Social Services and ask the Member behind you how much

consultation took place with the Member for LaPoile when they scuttled the Port

aux Basques hospital. Ask him how many meetings he had with the Premier in

relation to the plans for the Port aux Basques hospital. Ask the Member for

Placentia if he was called in and advised that the Placentia hospital was going

to be scuttled. None of them were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the

Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Social Services, and I would love to

see the Premier make a decision to scuttle a hospital in the Member's district

without consulting him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HEARN: I know. I do not have one either. I said I

would love to see the Premier scuttle a hospital in your district without

consulting you. I would love to see the reaction, because I do not think the

Minister would sit there and take it, and I do not think the Members who have

been affected, the Member for Trinity South over there, the Member for LaPoile,

and others, are going to take it either, so we are giving them a chance today to

do something about it. I was going to get into the Liberal manifesto as put out

in the last election but we have already heard it quoted a few times. But

certainly what the Premier promises in that is nowhere near what he is doing

now, which once again shows exactly what concern he has for health care in the

Province.

In relation to Placentia, getting back to it again, where we

are talking about thirty people being affected in relation to job security, a

hospital that had some 800 admissions last year. Mr. Speaker, that is going to

be a big blow to the area unless the Member, through his efforts and the efforts

of the people who were here yesterday, convince the Minister of Health tomorrow

to make changes. And I certainly hope the Minister will listen to them and make

the necessary changes, and then I hope he is prepared to listen to every other

group which comes pounding on the door and make the same changes. I look forward

now to the Member for Port de Grave getting up, Mr. Speaker, and telling us what

he would do.

MR. EFFORD: I wish I could. I wish I could.

MR. HEARN: You are not allowed to get up today, either? I

am sorry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, when I presented the petition on behalf of the residents of the

Placentia inter-town area and the Cape Shore, I outlined justification and need

for the maintenance of in-patient services at the Placentia Cottage Hospital. It

is with some interest today that I learned - I should not say today, yesterday

evening - I learned that the resolution that has been put forth by the hon. the

Member for Ferryland, I am in a quandary about, Mr. Speaker; I am also in a

quandary about the word `defer'. That is my only hesitation with regard to that

particular resolution.

Defer for what? Now I have not heard much explanation from

the other side as to what could transpire with a deferral. The Come By Chance

Hospital, for example, which is also in my district, or covers part of my

district, that is closed; it was closed sometime ago down to a twenty-four hour

clinic, and now the twenty-four hour clinic is also gone.

This particular clinic was subjected, as the Chair is very

familiar with and shared with me a lot of work in getting that put to an

independent study. It was done by an independent person, outside Government

ranks. It was done by a person who is quite familiar actually with what happens

in Government and the bureaucracy, and what their figures mean and everything,

and I think our argument to that particular consultant was one that was built on

emotion and on projection, and we did not win the argument with the consultant

who recommended the closure of that particular hospital.

That is the problem I have today with this particular

resolution, Mr. Speaker, this referral to a consultant. I think the position put

forth by the people from Placentia, the position put forth by myself and the

position that is going to be put forth by the Board members on Thursday is a

good one. I think it would be a better one, and I am weighing this, to be quite

frank with you, than could be put forth by a consultant. We started a particular

plan over a week ago in addressing the needs of the Placentia health care

system, and we have been following that so far. And I would recommend to the

Government and urge the Government that they recognize the need that has been

clearly identified and justified by the arguments which have been put forth so

far. And mine are quite clear. I do not have to repeat them all, they are in

yesterday's Hansard.

I would also recommend that the Government change its

position on the particular Budget as it applies to that particular institution.

I think if the Department of Health would make the hospital

board masters of their own budget and let them decide how many beds are needed,

how many beds are required and what to do with the particular services, whether

they are in-patient services or whatever the services are, let them decide how

much they are going to cost, and then, if necessary, adjust the Budget. And I

think, Mr. Speaker, the plan that is being put forth by the hospital board and

by the people who have spoken to date, including the support that came from Mr.

Hearn yesterday for the petition, is to listen to the arguments that are going

to be put forth by the various individuals involved.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution is particularly attractive to me.

I do not know about others. I just speak on Placentia's behalf. But I still have

trouble with the word `defer'. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am sort of torn

on what position to take on this particular resolution, whether to have faith in

what we have planned ourselves and the arguments which have put forth, or leave

it to consultants at some future date. I think we can probably put our case on

Thursday. Then, again, maybe I will be wrong, but I hope not. That is a decision

I will have to make as the day passes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Petitions on this

particular subject matter are not new to me, as I seem to remember starting them

some time before Christmas. Needless to say, I will be supporting the resolution

put forward by my colleague, the Member for Ferryland. It is rather amusing. You

hear the term `rationalize' being used to describe what is being done to our

hospital system and health care system throughout the Province.

Knowing that I was going to have a chance to speak here

today, I asked my secretary to look up the definition of rationalize in the

dictionary. One definition, Mr. Speaker, and this is Webster's New World

Dictionary 1982 Edition, `to apply modern methods of efficiency to an industry,

agriculture etc.' Another definition, again from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate

Dictionary 1989, `to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct.' So,

therefore, Mr. Speaker, the word `rationalize' like the sword of righteousness

the Premier has a tendency to wield from time to time, can cut both ways.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we got the word of `what does a health

care freeze mean to you?' when that was sent out to all the health care boards

across the Province, the local board in Green Bay did its sums and did an

across-the-board freeze and sent a proposal to Government what it would mean,

and it would mean closing some beds at the hospital, it would mean closing beds

at the senior citizen's complex, etc. - losing some twenty-two jobs, I think,

was their estimation.

The Department of Health made it clear to the local health

care board after receiving that submission and many others that it was not

interested in closing nursing home beds, so Springdale had better rethink its

position vis-a-vis the Budget freeze. And so they put forward another proposal

which they felt from signals, nuances, etc., from the Department of Health would

be more in keeping with the thinking of the Department of Health at that time.

And they put forward a proposal, a proposal I did not support, I would add, to

give up their hospital as a hospital and turn it into a chronic care

institution, with the hope that they would lose only six employees and their

wages from the economy of Springdale in particular, and Green Bay in general.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEWLETT: I spoke to the Administrator of the

Springdale Hospital just after the Provincial Budget came down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEWLETT: I spoke to the administrator and at the time

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: If the hon. Minister will please - I am sick

and tired of hearing about my severance pay, and I am sick and tired of hearing

about cucumbers. Stick one up your nose and be quiet, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. POWER: Excellent idea! Excellent idea!

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, they put forward a proposal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I just put forward a proposal.

But as I indicated earlier, the Green Bay Health Care Board

put forward a proposal which they felt would cost six jobs and change their

hospital over to a chronic care facility. I spoke to the administrator a few

days after the Budget, after he had some time for the realities of it all to

sink in, and the administrator had indicated by then he had let fifteen people

go. He was not sure exactly how many chronic care beds he had. The administrator

is away, I presume on vacation, or certainly out of town for two weeks, and he

contemplates probably having to lay off a few others at the management level.

That was the last I heard from the local area as to what the situation was. I

called out this morning. The administrator is out of town all this week and all

next, so it would appear to be either prolonged conference overseas or a

vacation. But prior to that he had laid off fifteen.

I brought petitions into this House against what this

Government is up to, Mr. Speaker. The Health Care Board in Springdale, with the

help of the good Mayor of Springdale, however, decided to go along with the

position of the Government of the day and put forward a proposal to downgrade

its hospital to a chronic care facility in the hope and expectation, they said,

and it is here on the front page of the newspaper, that they would lose six

jobs. So far they have lost fifteen, and I would think there are a few more to

come.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this would not all be so strange and funny

if it was not coming from a Liberal administration. I have only been elected for

a couple of years, but I can remember sitting in the gallery and watching the

Liberals in Opposition decry continuously, practically claim it was a crime

against humanity, to close a hospital bed temporarily for the summer. What we

have here now is a Government that calls itself Liberal into a wholesale

re-structuring of the health care system in our Province, a wholesale downsizing

of the hospital system in our Province.

The theory of it all sounds very good, Mr. Speaker.

`Rationalize', to come up with a better system, to use Webster's first

definition. You have a feeder clinic at Springdale which has 24 hour operations,

with lab and x-ray and a couple of holding beds to keep people overnight and

stabilize them, and then you whip them off in an ambulance to Grand Falls. My

friend from St. Mary's - The Capes indicated the medical travel bill is up,

because I think they expect to be whipping a lot of people off to regional

hospitals in the Province.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a snag in the situation,

in that Grand Falls, now having its area enlarged to include Green Bay, also

takes a cut. So somewhere along the system the buck, or the person, or the

patient has to stop. Somewhere along the system someone has to receive the

incoming patient.

My friend from Humber Valley pointed out the other day that

he had a situation where a doctor from the Deer Lake clinic called to the Corner

Brook hospital to say, `We have two emergencies on the way. They are in the

ambulance. They are coming. Get ready.' And Corner Brook said, `Don't send them

to us. We cannot handle them. We are up to our eyeballs.' They were already on

the road. What do you do then, turn around and head for the Grand Falls

hospital, three or four hours away?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: That is the kind of situation we are going

to find ourselves in. If you had rationalized it at the local level and then the

regional health care system is geared up - geared up - not down, to take the

increased traffic from the individual regions, then maybe there might be some

sense in what this Government is doing. But this Government is cutting at the

local level, it is cutting at the regional level, and it is cutting at the level

of our general hospitals here in St. John's. Somewhere along the line someone is

going to fall through the cracks, Mr. Speaker; some poor human being is not

going to survive because of a two or three hour drive in an ambulance in a

blizzard. It is just not going to happen properly.

In my district Triton is probably seventy or eighty miles

from St. John's. You drive up the highway, and you come to the junction of South

Brook. The ambulance driver in that particular situation had better be very well

trained because he has a choice: he can belt her twenty miles to the emergency

clinic at Springdale, or he can belt her forty miles to the regional hospital at

Grand Falls. That is his choice, and I hope to God every time he has to make

that choice he makes the right one. But that is the choice he will have.

And, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this bed study which they

indicated was a guideline I do believe, according to the bed study Springdale

was to be assigned at least some - I believe ten was the number - acute care

beds. Last year's Budget reduced the twenty-five bed acute care hospital in

Springdale to fifteen beds. Now we do not have any acute beds, just a couple of

holding beds, is about the best way to describe it.

What about the delivery of children, Mr. Speaker? I was born

in my mother's bed. There was no doctor. My aunt, a retired nurse, was the local

midwife. People in Newfoundland in this day and age are used to being around

when their children are born, and when their grandchildren are born. They are

used to going to visit them at the hospital. These days, now, you are going to

have to go to Grand Falls, and that is seventy, eighty or ninety miles,

depending on where you live. If you live in Harry's Harbour or Jackson's Cove,

Jackson's Cove being one of the most Liberal towns in Green Bay, it is probably

ninety miles away from the Grand Falls hospital and that is where those people

will have to go to deliver their children; and Mommie and Daddy and Grandpa and

all the rest of them are going to have to drive that distance just to be able to

see the newborn, not to mention the two or three hour drive in labour in the

middle of a blizzard, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What has that got to do with being

Liberal or not? What does that have to do with it?

MR. HEWLETT: I am just pointing out that the people who

voted Liberal, who voted for real change, this is not the type of real change

they expected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, health care in Green Bay, and I

will be perfectly honest about it, Government presence, health care presence is

an aid to the economy. We have not opened a mine since I was a teenager, we are

running out of trees, Government is shrinking. There is nothing left to keep

people out there. Pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, I will not have a district, because

there is no work locally. Why would anybody locally want to vote for a

Government that is de-populating the district? That is what they are doing,

de-populating the district. The nearest place you can go in Green Bay to get

your stamps right now is Calgary or Kuwait. And I have had a lot of calls

already from people asking, do you know of any companies going to Kuwait? The

thing that really confuses people, Mr. Speaker, is that they have a Liberal

Government in now and everybody understands what the word `liberal' means. I

should have brought down a dictionary definition of the word `liberal.' We have

one new democrat in the House, a socialist, we have our party, the people's

party, the middle-of-the-road party, and we have the Liberal Party, which is the

ultra right wing party. Margaret Thatcher would love you guys and would love to

be sitting in your front benches. You people are not Liberals. You are not

Liberals at all. Some of you individually may be Liberals, but you are led by a

person who is an ultra rightist and you do not have any choice but to put up

with him or walk. And you do not have the nerve to walk, so do not point your

finger at me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEWLETT: It is funny, Mr. Speaker, we have been in

this House now for several days discussing cuts in health and education and the

way that the Liberal Party has been really tearing into the social side of

Government, the side of Government that Joey Smallwood always proclaimed was the

essence of liberalism. The essence of liberalism is being ripped apart by this

particular ultra-right Government. And, a few days ago while all this was going

on, our first Minister, our Premier was up in Ontario visiting with the Premier

of a Socialist Government, no less, but, was he up there discussing with Premier

Rae, ways of dealing with restraints in recessionary times, peaceable ways of

dealing with your unions in these very difficult financial times?

No, Mr. Speaker, our Premier was up there discussing with Mr.

Rae a way that he could get back on the constitutional stage and do the Meech

Lake dance or whatever, the Constitutional convention dance or whatever it is he

likes to do on the national stage. You would think that if the Premier of this

Province, the poorest Province in the nation, faced with health care cuts and

whatnot, like we are into right now, if he was going to be in Ontario consulting

with a left wing Premier, you would think he would be consulting with a left

wing Premier on how to improve labour relations, how to deliver a reasonable

health care system in recessionary times. But was he worried about the people

storming the doors of Confederation Building out here yesterday, no, Mr.

Speaker, he was up in Toronto, worried about getting himself back on the

national stage, trying to get us into a Constitutional convention where we will

have even less say than we already have in the House of Commons, that is some

great forward step, that is, for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, when Meech Lake was on the go, I

indicated to this House of Assembly that the Premier's response to people's

cries for additional assistance for a decent health and education system was:

let them eat Meech, and now it would appear you know, it is let them eat a

national referendum. Where are we going to come out in a national referendum

percentage wise in this nation, what we think in a national referendum will be

so irrelevant; I mean, the hon. President of the Treasury Board knows that his

own brother up there in Ottawa makes more impact than all of our people would in

a national referendum, in terms of making Newfoundland's presence felt in the

nation; I mean, that is absolutely absurd.

So our good doctor would prescribe for our patients' ills: do

not worry about your health care system, do not worry about your education

system; take a couple of referendums, drink plenty of fluids and go to bed.

Sorry, we are out of kidneys, Sir, but the Premier will send us over a few

national referendums, good for the constitution you know, we might install a few

in you.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone back nearly forty years in health

care and I say that because I am nearly forty years old. When I was taken

seriously ill when I was a couple of weeks old, in February of 1952 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go on.

MR. HEWLETT: - I set out for the nearest hospital, or my

parents took me en route to the nearest hospital to save my life; my parents did

the hon. gentleman opposite a tremendous disservice, I was gravely, yea,

terminally ill and they decided to give it one last try and take me to the

nearest hospital-

MR. EFFORD: Thank God for the Liberal hospital.

MR. HEWLETT: Now, he walked into that one, Mr. Speaker,

he walke