July 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 32

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, on a very happy

occasion. I know this is an issue that has been referenced and acknowledged by

the Premier and some of his colleagues and, indeed, certain members on this side

of the House. It has to do with a particular group of young people who certainly

have shown this Province very well in the recent past. I am speaking of the Holy

Heart of Mary Chamber Choir.

As the member of this House, Mr. Speaker, for the District of

St. John's East, which in fact is the actual location where Holy Heart of Mary

School is located, we as Newfoundlanders shared with them on their very happy

occasion of being recognized as the best chamber choir in the world. Recently,

the Holy Heart of Mary Chamber Choir, representing not only Newfoundland but

Canada as well, participated in a music festival in Vienna, Austria during early

July of this year. As most of us know, I am pleased to indicate that this

particular choir from Holy Heart of Mary was held to be the best chamber choir

in the world, winning this particular international competition.

I had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, last week, of attending the

final presentation by this choir at St. Patrick's Church here in the city. At

that particular time we were given an indication of the type of music which in

fact led to their success, including some folk songs and spirituals. In

addition, Mr. Speaker, the complete Vienna competition set was performed by this

choir.

So I take pride as the member for this district and, I am

sure, on behalf of all the members of this House, in joining with the choir,

with the director Ms Quinn, with the school, with the city, with the Province

and, indeed, the country, in sharing with this special group of young people the

great award that they have attained internationally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and join with

the Member for St. John's East, and may I say, join with him in speaking on

behalf of all of us in his eloquent words in expressing our great pride and our

appreciation of the tremendous achievement of the Holy Heart Chamber Choir and

their director/producer, Susan Quinn and all of those associated with this

program that has brought such great joy to all of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador and I think has brought a measure of pride to people right across

Canada.

The Holy Heart Chamber Choir was in Vienna; it is true

wearing very much - if I can use the expression - the flag of Newfoundland and

Labrador on their shoulders, but they were there as Canada's officially invited

representative in this international competition. We are literally the best of

the best, in the world, which assembled to share together the experience of

their music; to share together the perfection of their craft and, Mr. Speaker, I

think we sometimes let these moments slide without reflecting upon them very

much, and the Member for St. John's East has done the House and the Province a

favour, in raising this immediately today.

But, what a tremendous achievement - in a city that itself is

famous for music, and the highest quality music, The Vienna Boys Choir and so on

- that a group assembled, from young men and women from the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the city of St. John's, Holy Heart, should perform in

some of the same cathedrals, some of the same venues as the Vienna Boys Choir,

should perform with a collection of choirs from around the world, of their

peers, a similar age group, who represent the best in the world and in that kind

of environment and that venue, should be judged the best in the world today. Mr.

Speaker, this is a tremendous achievement and one in which we can all take great

pride.

I was together with many others, as the member will recall,

it was a full house in St. Patrick's when they gave their final performance a

little while ago and, Mr. Speaker, in this time that we all enjoy on the planet,

whether our preoccupation is music or whether it is great literature, whether it

is great poetry, whether it is wonderful art, at some time in our lives we

always are impressed by something that moves us tremendously. We see or hear or

taste something that we think is near perfect and I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, and I know the member would agree with me, that the performance that we

saw at St. Patrick's was as close to perfection as one could come on this planet

when we heard the choir perform their last performance.

Mr. Speaker, over half the members of the choir will go on to

other activities - some off to university, some to post-secondary institutions,

some for some travel - and Ms Quinn and the parent group and support group will

begin anew. And, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt they will produce yet another

first-class group and another first-class effort.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I have the pleasure of receiving

a little later today at my home the choir and their parents. I would like to

invite the Member for St. John's East to come join me and them for a reception

in their honour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Member for St. John's East and

the Premier in congratulating once again the achievement of the Holy Heart of

Mary Chamber Choir. It is hard to match the superlatives of the Premier and the

member for St. John's East, because indeed what we have had is a superlative

performance, and a superlative show of the ability and talent that exists in

this Province, and also the ability to present oneself as well. The talent is

there, the love of music, the beautiful voices were all there, but it also took

a terrific effort of will of the parents, the organizers and the fund-raisers to

put together the trip to Vienna.

I think that all of them, in addition to the musicians

themselves, the beautiful voices of the choir members and the efforts of Susan

Quinn, the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed the whole of Canada, was

behind them and very proud of their achievement internationally. It is just one

more opportunity to reflect on the ability that we, in this Province, have when

we display our talents on the world stage, that we are in fact second to none.

They have reminded us of that. We should all be very proud not only of them but

of ourselves as a people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Since this government

without consultation dropped the dispensing fee for Social Services recipients'

prescriptions to $3.50 from $6.50, and since the Minister of Health asked Social

Services recipients to shop at Dominion, patient care has suffered. Is the

Premier aware that a patient profile is important in prescribing and dispensing

drugs? And will you reverse this ill-conceived budgetary measure that is

jeopardizing care for our sick?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the first part of the hon. member's question, yes, the

issue of a patient's profile is important in the aspect of monitoring, in terms

of usage of prescription products, of what happens in a patient's life. All all

pharmacies, as I pointed out earlier during the week to the media, are

registered with the same professional body. It is my understanding and it is my

assumption, and I believe it to be the case, that all pharmacies in the Province

provide the same professional competent level of services, including the ability

to be able to have in place, on behalf of their clients who do business with

them on a prescribing or dispensing basis, the appropriate patient profile

information that is appropriate to be kept and that is normally kept by

pharmacists who see people on a regular basis.

As to the question of whether or not government is

considering the revisiting of the dispensing fee, the answer to that, of course,

is clearly, no. We have indicated in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, that the drug

program, which has gone, by the way, for social services recipients from $18

million five years ago to $31 million last year, and continues to go in this

direction because it is essentially an open-ended program based on demand, based

on the number of people who qualify for social services cards and that sort of

thing - based on that, in the budgetary process we had to make some decisions

with respect to how we could control the cost of the program while at the same

time ensuring that the maximum amount of money we have goes into the most

important part of the whole program which is the ingredient program.

Most provinces in Canada have a co-pay but this Province

decided we would not have a co-pay on the issue of prescription drugs. We

decided that as a government we would calculate how much money we could pay

toward a dispensing fee. We set that at $3.50. We have indicated that the

marketplace will determine whether or not in one area or another, or in any

instance, a co-pay will be necessary. We acknowledge that a co-pay may be part

of what is happening in the industry. We will allow the industry, the free

market system and the marketplace to determine if, where and when a co-pay is

necessary to be charged. We do not deny that it is happening.

We have also said one other thing, that where it is

necessary, and only where it is necessary, we are prepared, we are equipped, and

we are able, as we have done for many years through out hospital system, to step

into an emergency situation so that nobody who is on a 100 per cent government

funded program will be denied prescription drugs for any reason.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is trying to create something out there that is

not true. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec to my

knowledge have no co-pay, five out of the remaining nine, and the minister

indicated that the majority had. That isn't correct. The dispensing fee hasn't

driven the cost of drugs up, I say to the minister; that isn't the reason. We

have the lowest dispensing fee in the country.

I ask the Premier: There is a growing concern that your

measures are going to force pharmacies to close all over this Province, thus

removing access to prescription drugs not only for Social Services recipients

but for anybody else who wishes to use that particular pharmacy in that

particular area. There have only been five pharmacies closed in this Province in

the last two years, and since the May 16 Budget, four have already closed. I ask

the minister: Don't you have a responsibility to ensure that the government

measures do not discriminate against people in rural areas of this Province by

shutting down their only pharmacy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr Speaker, to the issue of dispensing

fees, let me inform the House that there are five of the ten provinces with

dispensing fees. Two of those ten provinces happen to be Manitoba, which has a

$2 fee and the Ontario government this month introduced a $2 fee. Nova Scotia

has a $2 prescription fee, P.E.I. has a $3 fee, I believe it is, and New

Brunswick has a $4 fee. In Newfoundland we do not have a universal mandated

dispensing co-pay fee. We have said simply that if a co-pay fee has to come into

existence we will let the marketplace determine to what extent it comes in and

where it comes in, because we know full well that in certain areas it is

possible to have drugs dispensed and receive prescriptions without having to pay

co-pay. We are not in a position as government of supporting the multinational

chains as one would suggest over the private industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I have to say also that we are not in a

circumstance, or we are not in a mind-set, where we discourage multinationals

from coming in. We are open for business for all who want to come and practice

their trade on a reasonable and fair basis.

The issue of a dispensing fee has never been something that

has been regulated by government on any account and we will not consider the

issue of getting into regulating a co-pay or the dispensing fee. The dispensing

fee of $6.50 was one fee. There is another fee that gets charged of $7.90 to

individuals who walk in off the street with their own plan. So the whole issue

of a dispensing fee is something that the marketplace will decide for itself and

take care of. We have every measure necessary in place to ensure that no person

who is on a Social Services recipient drug card will ever be denied access to

prescription by virtue of a co-pay. We have said that we can provide that

service if necessary through our hospitals.

I have to say that I sat with my officials this morning, Mr.

Speaker, and they have indicated to me that except in two places in the Province

it is not an issue with the hospitals. They are not seeing anybody in addition

to those whom they would normally see to look to have prescriptions filled. So I

deduct from that, that the marketplace is very well taking care of the social

services recipients. Whether they are having to pay the $3 or not in all

circumstances I do not know but the issue is substantially decided on that

basis.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is asking pharmacies to dispense drugs at below

cost to help run the social program in this Province. Now, unless the minister

has information to the contrary, he stated that Manitoba has a co-pay, I have

information that says it does not and it charges $6.95. I have information that

says Prince Edward Island has a co-pay of $2 and the minister said $3. I don't

know what script the minister is reading from. I assume mine is current, I would

hope it is.

There are twelve hospital pharmacies outside St. John's in

this entire Province. Now, I would like to ask the Premier: How can social

service recipients have access to their medication when the nearest hospital

pharmacy, in some cases, is fifty to one hundred miles away, and even more in

other cases?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. member puts the proposition in the

context that in every other situation where there is not a hospital there is a

local pharmacy. The fact of the matter is, I believe, there are only 182

dispensing pharmacy situations in the Province. The many of these would be

located -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and seventy-seven.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, in that area. You are using numbers

deducting what you know to probably have either come into existence or

(inaudible) recently.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: The fact of the matter is, many of the

pharmacies are located in urban centres; St. John's, Gander, Corner Brook, Grand

Falls, these areas, and there are many, many areas of the Province which do not

and probably never will have a drug store, if you like, or a pharmacy in the

community. They have always had the requirement to get their prescriptions

filled and that does not change because of a dispensing fee. They continue to

have the need to get their drugs and if they got them at the hospital dispensary

in the past they will continue to do that. If they have gone to a drug store in

a larger centre, as most of them obviously have had to do, they will continue to

do that. So that is a separate issue completely from the dispensing fee. The

bottom line is, the dispensing fee is not causing any undue hardship beyond that

those who may, by virtue of circumstance, dealing with a specific pharmacy, be

asked to pay that.

Throughout the pharmaceutical industry, my information tells

me, there are many local pharmacies not charging the dispensing fee or the

non-mandatory co-pay that is defacto coming into existence. We simply say that

the co-pay is something that may happen in certain situations, but the bottom

line, Mr. Speaker, is that government can only afford to pay $3.50 plus an up

charge for drugs that cost more than $30. Our effective co-pay, or our effective

dispensing fee, is $4.25 not $3.50. If a drug is $30, if a prescription is $30

or $31, we pay $3.50 plus we pay $3.10. So it is $6.60 in that situation. If it

is a $100 prescription we pay $3.50 plus $10. It is a $13.50 prescription fee in

that instance. It may not cost any more to fill a $100 prescription than a $30

one. So the $3.50 is really not the total accurate figure but it is the figure

that is being used for purposes, I guess, of media presentation.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister now is trying to centralize drug dispensing here

in this Province - that is what he is trying to do. Now, the K-PMG, chartered

accountants report indicated that the cost of $3.50 is below the cost of

preparing those drugs and the minister, I am sure, is well aware of that. So he

is asking them to supply it at below costs.

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Social

Services. I have been informed that Social Services will cover the cost of a

taxi for a social services recipient to travel to a hospital pharmacy to get

their prescription filled if that person has no transportation of his own. Will

the minister confirm if that is true?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our policies dictate that we will provide transportation for

medical reasons, and if those medical reasons indicate that these people have to

travel to obtain their drugs, while it has not been an issue to date, it is

something that we will have to consider on a case-by-case basis. Because, being

able to access medical services is part of the policies that we have in place to

deal with this issue.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is saying now that the department will cover

the cost of a taxi to a hospital pharmacy, waiting time and return for that

taxi, but they will not pay $3 extra on a prescription - that is what I

understand the minister is saying.

I would like to ask another question of the minister. We have

been informed by Social Services clients that your department is actively

advising them to have their prescriptions filled at Dominion or Wal-Mart. When

the minister stands, would she inform this House if that statement is correct?

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

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to your first question, the answer is no. What I

said is that we will provide access for social assistance recipients to avail of

medical services - that is what I said; and in hardship cases, there is always

the opportunity to use discretion and I will continue to use that discretion.

With respect to -

MR. SULLIVAN: Advising them to shop at Dominion and

Wal-Mart.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What we have been advising people to do,

is to try to access their medications through pharmacies in their area which

provide the cheapest rates, if that is an option to them. And certainly, with

the situations outlined by the Minister of Health, that is what has been

indicated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay,

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health, as well.

My questions today, Sir, concern the elderly in this

Province.

I would like to ask the minister today to provide me with

three sets of figures. I would like to know, Mr. Minister, the total amount of

revenue the Province collected per year in nursing-home fees when the highest

fee is $4,000 a month; I would also like to know what the revenue is when the

fee is $28 a month and, as well, I would like to know the revenue when the

highest fee is $1,510 a month, as it was until you recently raised it?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The total cost to the health care system in the Province for

the 3,046 long-term care beds we have is $154 million in total; that works out

to approximately $4,000 per bed. In addition to that, the nursing homes

themselves collect revenues that are somewhere in the area of, I believe,

between $35 million to $39 million. At the rate of $1,510, that is the budgetary

figure we have worked with over the last two or three years.

In terms of the $4,000 rate that was announced and which has

now been reduced down to $2,800, we, in the budget process, projected that we

would pick up about an extra $3 million in revenue, based on a $4,000 rate. By

moving the universal maximum rate to a figure of only up to $2,800, we believe

that figure is now down to somewhere around $1.2 million to $1.5 million; but

the exact amount, of course, we will not know for sure in terms of revenue

generation what it will give us, because the rate went into effect only on July

1. We have made an adjustment, as the hon. member knows, since then, so it will

take us a month or two to determine exactly what the full, new and additional

revenue will be from that increased rate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay,

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rather surprised to learn that we really do not know the

answer. We really do not know what the cost is. I suppose, over time, we will

eventually find out.

Is the Province really collecting enough in additional

nursing home fees to justify the great hardship the higher fees are causing some

families, even with the new provision that liquid assets should be divided as if

the couple were divorced?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the rate of $1,510 which was

set in 1986 and was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into

Hospitals and Nursing Homes, which was conducted in 1984 was deemed to be a fair

and reasonable rate that I guess, at that point in time a previous government

accepted. We are simply following on the same principles put forward in that

Royal Commission report to arrive at the $2,800 rate. It is a rate that only

recognizes the increase in the cost of providing that care from the time that

the rate was set at $1,510.

Now, to the issue of exactly how much revenue it is going to

raise, the answer is simply this: It is a movement from a rate that was ten

years old to a new rate today. It seems that there are about 175 to 185 people

in our nursing homes who will have some ability to pay something beyond the

$1,510 maximum rate - it may be $1,511, most will not be anywhere near the

$2,800. But for those who have income from pensions and that sort of thing, that

allows us to exclude the consideration of one's principal residence or home,

that allows us to exclude the consideration of a car or a cottage or a boat or

any other type of fixed assets, we take none of these things into consideration.

We consider only liquid assets, which is cash in the bank and/or readily

marketable securities.

In that situation, we will be able to determine within the

next one or two or three months what exactly the extra revenue is. We brought

into the Budget a figure of $3 million that we would get on a new higher rate of

$4,000. We now predict that that revenue will fall to about $1.2 million, which

will leave us with $1.8 million we will have to pick up somewhere else in our

Budget.

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

for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I find that again rather

interesting, and only for its being so serious, probably rather amusing.

Again, for the Minister of Health. The minister warned us he

would not reduce the ceiling fee from $4,000 a month. I am sure the minister is

well aware of that. I guess, after some public pressure he decided to drop it

down a bit. After a while at $4,000 a month the savings could be found elsewhere

in the nursing home budget. Since he wants us to believe that the reduction to

$2,800 a month is significant, which it is not, will he tell us where in the

Budget he is planning the new cuts?

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

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

Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, announced the Budget in May, I think it was May 14.

One of the things that we I believe as a government justifiably were somewhat a

little bit muted but nonetheless a little bit proud and pleased about was that

we were able to announce a Budget that not only showed a hold-the-line amount

for health care services in the Province, but we announced an increase in our

expenditure for health care in the Province from $901 million to $903.3 million.

There have been no cuts to the health care budget this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: There will be no cuts to the health care

budget next year. There will be no cuts to the health care budget the following

year. Because we are committed to a sustainable and a health care system in the

Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - that will be good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I can tell the hon. member, for his

information, in specific answer to his question, we will not find the $1.8

million in the nursing home budget - I never said we would. As a matter of fact,

I know we won't. We will have to look elsewhere to find the $1.8 million that

this adjustment will cause us.

The government is committed to ensuring that we do things on

a principle that is fair. We are ready at any point to listen to reason. We have

heard the representation of people in the homes as to some of the anomalies that

the policy created, and we have responded to that in a fair and reasonable

fashion. We will find the $1.8 million. If you have suggestions as to where we

can find it elsewhere in the Budget, I will take it from the other departments

and not from anywhere else in the health care budget. I can assure you that

there will be more money spent in health care this year than was spent last

year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know what drugs the Minister of Health is on but

somebody should be charged for dispensing them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Premier. I ask the Premier if he played any part, or if he indeed was consulted

by the federal minister, to bring about the negative changes to the TAGS program

as announced yesterday here in St. John's by Minister Mifflin.

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the Province was

consulted, and I can let you know that in no way, shape or form did we agree to

early retirement of the TAGS program. In fact, we recommended that it continue

until 1999.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I can understand the Premier not wanting to answer

the question since he was the author of the whole plan back in 1994.

Premier, you were responsible as the Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans in May 1994 for this TAGS program, a program that was underfunded

from day one. I ask the Premier if he feels it is acceptable to inflict further

financial hardship on the fishermen and plant workers of this Province for a

mistake that his own government made in underestimating the number of people who

would take

part in the program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that the

member opposite is absolutely correct. When the previous Conservative government

refused to give a commitment that there would be any extension to the NCARP

program which expired after two years, when in the middle of the election

campaign Jean Charst came to Newfoundland and said we cannot give a commitment

to any extension of the program, it is true that I interceded with others from

this Province and we found $1.9 billion for the fishermen of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I confess you are right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: He did, Mr. Speaker, find $1.9 billion,

half of what was in the NCARP program for half the period of time I say to the

Premier.

Premier, the TAGS program has now changed from what the

fishermen and fish plant workers were led to believe in 1994 and your position

has also changed since then. As the Premier of this Province, will you today

give your assurances to the fishermen and plant workers who have seen their jobs

disappear through no fault of their own, and who today live in fear of what the

future holds, I ask the Premier if he will do whatever is necessary, to use

whatever resources are necessary, to make sure that this program goes to the

projected date of 1999 rather than 1998 as projected yesterday by the federal

minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows it is a

federal program by the federal government which is totally responsible for what

has happened in the fishery. It is regrettable indeed that it looks like the

program will end in 1998, but we are more optimistic than that, Mr. Speaker.

With the efforts that have been made by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture in this Province to introduce multi-species licenses and with the

fact that we might see an opening of the South Coast fishery, we would like to

believe that there are going to be a number of people who will not require TAGS

come 1998, and that will indeed enable more people to take advantage of the

program into 1999. So we are being more optimistic than the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the hon. Premier. The Newfoundland

Dockyard is all but closed and the employees have still not been offered a fair

severance package. Despite its major investment in the Newfoundland Dockyard,

the provincial government has done very little to help negotiate a severance

package for the Newfoundland Dockyard workers or to facilitate a takeover for

this century-old Newfoundland industry.

Does the Premier believe that the provincial government has

done all it can, and should do, to negotiate a severance package and a takeover

so that we do not lose this vitally important industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the member who has

just asked the question knows full well, and I think that any fair-minded

individual involved with the committee that has been working on this knows full

well, that not only has the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador been

involved and been encouraging the takeover process, but any fair-minded person

would have to acknowledge that that takeover process and the negotiation itself

began after the representations that I made as the regional minister for

Newfoundland in the federal cabinet of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we arranged at that time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a year ago.

PREMIER TOBIN: I would like to answer the question which

your colleague asked, and I know you would like to hear the answer too.

We arranged for the former Minister of Finance for

Newfoundland, Mr. Winston Baker, to be brought in as a facilitator; I think the

hon. member knows that. We provided for a period of time for negotiations

between the dockyard, Marine Atlantic, and the employees themselves. Mr.

Speaker, I was involved in arranging an extension to that time to allow more

time for this negotiation to complete itself. It is regrettable, and the member

knows this, that at the end of the piece, when all the issues had been

negotiated between the employees, between Marine Atlantic, with the involvement,

I suppose, of the appropriate federal departments and ministers, that there has

not been an agreement.

You can talk about why there is disagreement, you can talk

about who should move or who should not move, that is an negotiation between two

parties, but I can assure the member, and I think the member would acknowledge,

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been involved, has been

supportive of the process, and has wanted nothing more than to see the employees

have an opportunity to continue the tradition of this Yard here in the City of

St. John's, and that remains our wish. But if you are asking the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to financially commit itself to this Dockyard in

addition to the one that we run in Marystown, I don't think we can do that, and

I hope the member is not making that suggestion at this time.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been determined -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I've recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's South. If

other members wanted to ask questions they can rise in their place.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been determined by the Terms of Union that the

Canadian government did not have to maintain the railway service in this

Province any more than they had to maintain the Dockyard. In fact, the Dockyard

was subject to the government Terms of Union under the same terms, and in the

same terms, as the Canadian National Railway.

Will the minister acknowledge, however, that the federal

government offered a much better severance package to CNR workers as well as

offering hundreds of millions of dollars to the provincial government at that

time? Why the double-standard, I ask the minister, first of all, and I also ask:

Why at that time did the provincial government of that day fight tooth-and-nail

for the railway workers when our government has not done the same thing? When is

this government going to stand up and fight for Newfoundlanders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I

understand the member standing in his place and asking a question, asking

whether or not a severance package today is the equivalent of a severance

package of more than a decade ago, and so on. That is a member making

representation, but I suggest, with great respect to the member, the

representation he is making is in the wrong place. This is a negotiation - and

the member knows that - between Marine Atlantic and the employees at the

Dockyard. The discussion has gone on for quite a period of time. There have been

several extensions. There was, I'm told, a severance offer on the table of $10.7

million. Whether or not that severance package is more generous -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) not true.

PREMIER TOBIN: I'm sorry to tell the Leader of the

Opposition that is true. I know that there was a severance offer on the table of

$10.7 million. If I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: If I can finish, please, the answer. There

was a severance offer on the table of $10.7 million. That is what I'm informed.

That offer may be less generous than some circumstances and more generous than

other circumstances. That may be the case. This is a negotiation between two

parties.

Unless the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which

already has a shipyard of its own, and which, by the way, I remind the member

opposite, has just finished a negotiation with the employees of that Shipyard

where they have committed themselves to a 10 per cent productivity gain or a 10

per cent wage roll back, in order to make Marystown work, and they have made

that commitment in writing, unless we are prepared to come to the table as a

government and take on the ownership of a shipyard we don't own or to put cash

dollars, if that is what the Opposition is recommending, into the offer at this

stage, then we are not entitled - and the members opposite know this - to sit on

the outside trying to negotiate this deal.

We have worked hard to make the deal a success. We support an

employee takeover. We have made representations where it is appropriate. The

employees themselves know that. I say to the member, his representation will be

more productive and more helpful if he tries to contribute to finding a

settlement rather than to scoring political points on the floor of the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

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

Provision Of Printing, Microfilming And Electronic Imaging To The Government Of

The Province By Kodak Canada Incorporated," bill No. 19. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Public Accountancy Act No. 2," bill No.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, at this point I believe we have an

agreement in order that people would be able to distribute the bill and the two

opposition parties would be able to read the bill and to become informed of what

the bill says. I think we have an agreement among us that we would move first

reading of both bills, just to give a notice of motion. Mr. Speaker, I move that

we give first reading to Bill No. 19, "An Act to Facilitate the Provision of

Printing, Microfilming and Electronic Imaging to the Government of the Province

by Kodak Canada Incorporated".

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act to Facilitate the Provision of

Printing, Microfilming and Electronic Imaging to the Government of the Province

by Kodak Canada Incorporated." (Bill No. 19)

On motion, Bill No. 19 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act to Amend the Public Accountancy Act, No 2."

(Bill No. 20)

On motion, Bill No. 20 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Petitions

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 5,000

Newfoundlanders who are very concerned about the dispensing of prescription

drugs in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, support the position of the

pharmacist in this Province. I am amazed, galled and I guess insulted that the

minister has not found time in his busy

schedule to probably even take this

petition to look at it, to give more thought to it, to probably spend more time

with the pharmaceutical association in this Province to see how these dispensing

fees can be reinstated. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I am not the only one in

this House who feels this way today. I speak for both sides of this House when I

say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FRENCH: That's a fact. Oh yes, from some of your own

members, yes. Yes, Mr. Minister, from some of your own members. Some of your own

members, Mr. Minister, are not too happy with you, believe me. I think it is

time that the poorest of the poor - for the Minister of Social Services, I don't

know how many phone calls you get, Minister, but I get lots of them; I get them

at home, I get them in my office and I get them every single day of the week. I

have people in my district, Mr. Speaker, and I will just go into the case of one

individual in particular who has no legs and who takes sixteen different

medications a month, and she has been told by the people at the Department of

Social Services that if they do anything to help this lady they are fired. They

are fired! I think they probably should be fired, Mr. Speaker. This person is a

person who is in need and who has to live on a certain amount of money every

single month.

I think that the minister should go back, and if he has not

already, he should certainly read the report from the pharmaceutical association

in this Province as to exactly what it does cost to produce a prescription in

this Province. I sat here along with at least all the members on this side of

the House and heard the minister say: no new cuts to health care. Garbage,

absolute garbage, when you have everybody, I think, connected with health care,

who come out, day-in and day-out, and talk about health care and how they have

to cut back their budgets and so on -but, we have no new cuts to health care.

This has probably been one of the biggest cuts to this Province, certainly to an

industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker, when now we have the minister and

officials in various departments sending people out to multi-nationals. I think

that is totally wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I think it should stop. These people do

not get EDGE programs or discounts or anything else, they have to go out, they

have to get their business and they have to run their business.

I remember being here one day when the Minister of Health

said: We can produce them for $1.99; I believe that was the figure the minister

mentioned. Well, I can probably produce them for nothing if I didn't have any

expenses, so it is very easy to say probably somebody can do it for a $1.99. In

the case of our multi-nationals we are doing it as lost leaders - we are doing

it at that and the minister has been told that. I know he has been told that;

that they are doing it as lost leaders. But if we do not have any expenses, if

we do not have buildings to pay for, lights to pay for, and staff to pay, then

it is very easy, Mr. Speaker, to do it probably for $1.99.

The Minister of Health is well aware of the report of which I

speak, which shows that it does cost something well in excess of $6.00 as a

dispensing fee. I am sure he is well aware of that. I am sure he has seen the

report and I am sure officials in his department have seen this.

So I ask the government today, Mr. Speaker, to go back to its

drawing board, to go back, especially on the $6.50 and have a look at that -

because we do have pharmacies who are now laying people off - that we go back

and revisit this area and have a look to see if there is not some way that we

can reinstate the $6.50 dispensing fee out of the budget of the Department of

Health.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the petition as put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South.

Mr. Speaker, this is a prime example of where the government

of the day have gone out and implemented changes without consultation.

I would like for the Minister of Health, when he gets up to

speak, to address that, that one little word, consultation, and let us know whom

he did consult and how he arrived at the figure of $3.50, for coming up with a

price which the minister felt was a fair return to the pharmacists and the

pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we all realize we are living in tough, financial

times. Everybody agrees with that, including the pharmacists, and they, in turn,

would gladly do their share to help the government come up with a solution to

try to save some money as it relates to drugs dispensing. But you cannot expect

the pharmacists and the drug stores of this Province to bear the whole brunt,

especially the independent ones; and I suppose, Mr. Speaker, to add insult to

injury, was when the minister of the day, the Minister of Health, went on

television and said: If you want to get your prescriptions, then I suggest you

go to Dominion Stores or Wal-Mart.

What an insult!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You did say it, I say to the minister,

and thousands of other Newfoundlanders heard you say it. You can sit in your

seat today and say you didn't say it, but you did - you did!

Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the people who are carrying

out a very, very important occupation in this Province today. A review was done

for the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmaceutical Association, and from what I

understand, it showed that it costs $6.46 in order to fill a prescription. That

is their cost, Mr. Speaker, but somehow, the minister in his wisdom says it can

be filled for $3.50. Again, I don't know how the minister came up with those

figures.

I would also like to remind the minister of the human touch

that is involved in operating independent drugstores, especially in rural

Newfoundland today, when most of the druggists not only know the drugs they are

dispensing, but they also know the clients to whom they are dispensing it. I

don't know if you have ever gone down to Wal-Mart or Dominion Stores to buy a

prescription, but I did. I did, just last night, to find out - knowing I was

going to speak here today - and compare it with the kind of service I get at my

drugstore in Musgravetown, I say to the minister.

You go in. The person who meets you at the front desk is a

worker they have working there, and their job is to accept the prescription and

take it to the druggist. You don't see the druggists at all, let alone have time

to talk to them and confer with them. You go to my drugstore in Musgravetown,

and you go to the other drugstores in my district, and you have a relationship

with the druggists, with the pharmacists, where they know you and they know the

other clients, the other patients, who visit them on a daily basis. They know if

they should dispense 100 pills at one time, or if there is a problem there that

they should only dispense ten. They also know if there is abuse, if somebody is

abusing those prescriptions. All that is very common knowledge. I say to the

minister it is very important knowledge as well.

When the minister compares the dispensing of drugs at

Wal-Mart and Dominion Stores in a little corner that fits, I suppose, the rules

and regulations of this government, and they say they can dispense it - well,

they were dispensing it for $1.99. I understand now it is $3.89 that they

charge.

MR. SULLIVAN: Three dollars and ninety-nine cents now.

MR. FITZGERALD: Three dollars and ninety-nine cents, I am

reminded by the Member for Ferryland, Mr. Speaker. We also have to remember the

other things that particular store does. They don't have to pay for snow

clearing, they don't have to pay for maintenance, they don't have to pay for the

rent, the floor space they use. They don't have to pay for extra heat and light.

But the independent drugstores out there today have to build all this into their

dispensing fee.

I must admit again that when I heard the government of the

day was reducing the dispensing fee from $6.50 to $3.50 I never had a lot of

sympathy for the druggist either. Because I was always of the understanding that

that was above and beyond the normal mark-up that they would make for that

particular drug, but I found out after that it wasn't. I surmised, I suppose,

like the Minister of Health did, and formed an opinion.

I think the Minister of Health should consult with the

independent pharmacists out there today. There is a solution. They have offered

some solutions, and I have read them. I don't know if the minister has taken

time to read them. They sound very real to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: They sound, Mr. Speaker, like a group of

people who would like to work with government to solve the problems that they

are experiencing and help them to try to get their financial house in order. I

ask the minister to take some time out before he makes the hard-nosed approach

and says: No, it will not be changed, and listen to them and make a decision

based on information, make a wise decision - not go and make the irrational

decision that he did in bringing about this change a few short months ago.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind the minister of the

number of drugstores that have closed in rural Newfoundland since this policy

was implemented. From what I understand, there have been four drugstores closed

in the last three or four months. That is a reflection of what I think you will

see happening in rural Newfoundland, because those independent drugstores will

not be able to afford to remain open. They will not be able to afford to pay

their staff. And it is rural Newfoundland that will suffer more than any other

area if this policy is allowed to continue.

I plead with the minister to sit down with the drugstore

owners, listen to them, and make your decision based on sound economic forecasts

or information. Make it on facts and not perception. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad for the opportunity to take another minute or two

and speak about this issue because it has been a public issue. There have been

some misunderstandings, some non-factual propositions put forward here in the

House today and beyond. I, on behalf of government, want to first of all say

that the Government of this Province does recognize and does appreciate the role

that the pharmacies in this Province provide in terms of service to the people

of the Province.

The people of the Province have been well served, are being

well served, and will continue to be well served by the pharmaceutical industry

in this Province. Whether it is the small independent pharmacist in one's local

community or whether it is the larger pharmaceutical dispensary in an urban

centre, they all provide an equally valuable service. They provide a variety of

services to people who need to get prescriptions filled, including not only the

dispensing of the product but the monitoring of the patient profile and all

these sorts of things.

Government has never said, Mr. Speaker, that we believe

pharmacists can fill a prescription in every location for $3.50. What we have

done by virtue of the budgetary process is decided that that is all we can

contribute to the cost of the dispensing fee for social services recipients in

the future. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the seniors of this Province have

never had a dime paid toward their pharmaceutical dispensing fees. The seniors

in this Province pay the full 100 per cent cost of the dispensing services they

receive, and they have never had the benefit of even a partial co-pay in terms

of dispensing services.

We were putting together a Budget this year under very

difficult circumstances. We were dealing with a component of a $54 million drug

program, $31 million of which was spent last year for social services recipient

drug costs. That is a figure that has gone up from $18 million five years ago

and is at $31 million in last year's Budget. We could not put more than the $54

million back into the program this year so we had to make some choices as to

where we could find the savings to essentially offset the increase in the cost

of ingredients, plus to offset the number of people who unfortunately we see and

find showing up on social services lists and those who get benefits from the

Department of Social Services.

I want to acknowledge also the suggestions that have been put

forward by the Pharmaceutical Association. I have met with their association on

many occasions and I have met with individual pharmacists, many of them over the

last couple of months, and I want to make it very, very clear with respect to

the suggestions that they have put forward. Most of the ideas and most of the

suggestions that have been put forward in terms of saving money in the drug

program have already been factored into this year's drug program Budget by the

Department of Health and the government.

We have been working on some of these initiatives since as

early as last September. We have just put in place some new protocols with

respect to the GI drugs, the gastrointestinal drugs, and we expect to save about

$800,000 on that part of the program, but we have done that in consultation with

the Pharmaceutical Association, the Newfoundland Medical Association, and the

School of Medicine at Memorial University, and we have developed protocols and

guidelines that we think will save us some money in that area.

We are, as we speak, in the process of dealing with the

cardiac drugs on the same basis, of reviewing the basis on which we will pay for

certain types of drugs in that category. We are also in the process of working

on the psychiatric drugs. There are initiatives that are ongoing that will, we

hope, allow us to find the savings that we have already factored into this

Budget. I said to the Pharmaceutical Association when we met in May, and I say

to them again today, that if it were possible to find quantifiable, easily

accessible, and additional savings beyond which we had factored into our drug

program this year, then we would look at those savings and have an assessment

made as to what extent we could apply them back to the dispensary fee, but I

have to be very honest; my officials in the department have done a thorough and

complete analysis. Most of the savings that have been recommended we recognize

as being potentially there. Most of them we have factored into this year's

budget, and the raw truth is that if we were to adjust the pharmaceutical

dispensing fee one cent back from the $3.50 that we have now committed ourselves

to pay this year then we would have to find the money in some other area of the

health care budget. And I have to say frankly that the money is not there.

Eight million dollars of the $31 million we spent last year

in the drug program for social services recipients was spent on dispensing fees,

and we make no apologies for taking advantage of the marketplace on this

particular issue. We do not suggest that people go anywhere in particular to get

their drugs filled, but we say that we should take advantage on behalf of the

taxpayers of the Province of the best price that is out there in terms of

dispensing services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: And we will continue to do that in the

greater interest and good of the people of the Province. We do not say that

people must charge more for their fees, but we say that is all we can pay, the

$3.50.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

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

MR. HARRIS: I think -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi; I am sorry.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes make the

same mistake myself.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 522 residents

of St. John's who are petitioning the House of Assembly to protest the decision

of the Department of Education to remove the school buses from the area of New

Pennywell and Old Pennywell Roads. That decision means that the children who

live in that area, as of September, 1996, will not have school buses to bring

them to school.

These parents and friends of the children request the

Department of Education to reconsider its intention and to allow the present

school bus system to operate. They are extremely fearful of the children - and

these are children from Kindergarten to Grade VIII -having to cross a total of

nine lanes of traffic at the intersection of Columbus Drive and Empire Avenue.

In addition, many portions of the above are not served by the St. John's

Metrobus.

Mr. Speaker, these 522 residents, and thousands more who

wanted to sign this petition but never had it presented to them - there are

thousands of people in this city who are going to suffer as a result of the

Department of Education's decision to remove existing school buses in the city

of St. John's. Now, this is designed, supposedly, to save $300,000, and they

have asked the Metrobuses to replace that system. Now, the Metrobus tells us

that it is going to cost them $1 million in subsidy alone to provide the same

service that is currently provided by the school bus system for the sum of

$300,000. In addition to that, the parents of those students will have to pay

$300,000 in fares in order to have the same service that is now being provided

by the yellow school buses.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been brought up in

this House many, many times. We all know that the Department of Education, on

the issue of school busing, discriminates against people who live in St. John's.

Everywhere else in the Province - Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Labrador City -

everywhere else in the Province except St. John's, the Department of Education

provides school buses under certain rules, that are paid for by the Department

of Education. In the city of St. John's, with a few exceptions that are now

being removed, parents have to pay the cost of having their kids go back and

forth to school on a Metrobus, and many parents cannot afford it.

Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting at St. Theresa's School a

couple of weeks ago by their parents and friends, many of whom are in the

galleries here today, and one woman who spoke quite passionately and eloquently

said: This is not a Metrobus issue; this is a poverty issue. This is an issue of

people who cannot afford to pay to have their children go to school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That is the issue, and these are not only

people on social assistance; these are people who said they were working, and

their husbands were working, and they did not have enough money to buy a school

bus pass to have their kids go to school.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health was there, and he said

what they were doing was making things fair for everybody in St. John's; what

they were doing was taking away the unfairness by removing the school buses from

these people so that they were going to be equal to everybody else in St.

John's, and no one was going to have a school bus. Well, that is exactly the

wrong thing to be doing. What needs to be done is the policy that is applied in

the rest of the Province has to be applied in the city of St. John's, and that

people who cannot - who meet the 1.8 kilometres or whatever the rule is, who

have to get school buses, have them provided by the Department of Education.

That rule should apply in St. John's just as it applies in Mount Pearl,

Conception Bay South, Baie Verte, Roddickton or anywhere else in the Province

where the children have to go to school. Mr. Speaker, this does not only affect

the residents of the New Pennywell and Old Penneywell Road areas. They went to

the trouble of getting together a petition over the summer months and they

presented it to me. This affects people, and the five areas that are affected by

this, Mr. Speaker, are Quidi Vidi, Shea Heights, Brophy Place, Virginia Park and

the New Pennywell and Old Penneywell Road areas. We know, Mr. Speaker, from the

socio-economic information, that these are obviously areas as well where there

are people who are in a position where they cannot afford to have their kids go

on the Metrobus because it costs too much money. A school bus pass, Mr. Speaker,

for a child costs $20 per month and that is something that parents just cannot

afford, especially if they have two or three children going to school.

So, Mr. Speaker, it has been raised in this House before. The

previous Minister of Education had some sympathy for this issue and undertook, I

think, a study to bring about some changes and had the officials in the

department looking at it. I am afraid the results of the study have been that

the current Minister of Education and his government decided that as a result of

their study they are going to take away school buses from the students of St.

John's and not remove the discrimination by ensuring that children in St. John's

have the same ability to get a school bus to take them to school at the cost of

the Department of Education as people do outside. I know the minister is going

to speak to this but I do not want to hear him say that the policy has to do

with where transportation is available. Availability, Mr. Speaker, in this case,

has to do with the ability to pay. If people do not have the ability to pay,

then their school bus is not available to them and therefore the Department of

Education should step in and make sure that people have the same rights to

attend school and to have a ride to school where the distances are extreme, as

students do outside the city of St. John's. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know some of

this is going to be alleviated when the school system changes around. With the

new reforms to the school system there is going to be some reduction in school

busing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: But, Mr. Speaker, the saving here is a false

economy and to save $300,000 at the expense of $1 million to the Metrobus system

is not saving money at all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the petition as just

presented by my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. I, too, was

present at the public meeting held at St. Theresa's School several weeks ago and

also was present at a public meeting held for parents in the Brophy Place area

several weeks before that. In fact, I was a participant in an exercise a number

of days ago, whereby it was clearly seen that there are significant hazards

which face children, in particular, those who live in the New Penneywell Road

area, who are forced to cross an eight-lane or nine-lane highway, across Pitts

Memorial Drive. Mr. Speaker, it is clearly a sign that when decisions are made,

decisions are made by this government without any forethought, without any

consultation, without any consideration as to what is in the best interest of

the young people of our Province and specifically, in this case, what is in the

best interest of the young people of our city. Mr. Speaker, this is an important

issue for the parents and the students who reside in the areas previously

mentioned.

It was indicated by the hon. minister some while ago, that

special consideration would be given to special circumstances, and that would

lead any reasonable person to believe that there will be an assessment of each

case, of each set of circumstances as they arise. That means, Mr. Speaker, that

the situation of parents and students on Brophy Place, the situation of parents

and students on Shea Heights, the situation which exists or which will exist in

September of this year for parents and students in the New Pennywell Road area,

will be given a second look, a second assessment, a second review; but, Mr.

Speaker, to this date, that has not happened. When the minister states, as he

did in the past, that there will be review for special circumstances, as I

indicated, Mr. Speaker, that allows most reasonable people to believe that

change may in fact take place where the circumstances warrant.

Well, I ask the minister: Why have changes not been made upon

review of the circumstances which clearly speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker?

These are special circumstances and the children and the parents of these areas

deserve better. They deserve a service to which they are accustomed; they

deserve a service which assures security and protection and fairness and lack of

discrimination and equality with other students in this Province. They ask for

no more, they ask for no less, and that, I think, is a humble request by the

parents and the students who live in this area.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would again, in support of this petition,

call upon the minister to put his money where his mouth is, and to reassess the

situation as he indicated in the past that he would; to give a second look and

review of the special set of circumstances which clearly exist in these areas

for these children. It is better that it be done now before it is too late.

School opens in a matter of weeks. The decision must be reviewed, changes must

be made, there must be a reversal to this decision so that clearly what is in

the best interests of our young people and their parents can be assured.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make three or four comments, I guess, with

respect to the position as presented by the Member for Quidi Vidi - Signal Hill

and supported by the hon. Member for St. John's East.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that what we have instituted here

is a consistent application of busing policy within the boundaries of the City

of St. John's, because before there were two different circumstances that

prevailed. We have had it checked, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the

representations made by the parents and by members on their behalf and by

members in our own caucus and even in our own Cabinet who have brought this

issue back to the attention of the government and asked that, because of what

people are saying and because of the representations that are being made, could

we check and see if, in fact, there is validity to the case, and should we, in

any way, be contemplating changing the decision.

Mr. Speaker, the review of the circumstance suggests that

there isn't a reason for the government to change its decision because the

representations made do not have the substance. The general issue, Mr. Speaker,

with respect to, is school busing in the City of St. John's treated differently

from other centres in the Province, the answer is yes. The answer has been yes

since school busing was instituted over thirty years ago. It was the

circumstance to put it in context, Mr. Speaker, than when there was a former

government here, up to 1989. In days when governments were doing things like

giving raises to public servants of 12 per cent, 15 per cent and 18 per cent a

year - I gladly accepted them because I was working at the time - they didn't

institute any busing in the City of St. John's when governments had that kind of

money.

We are in a circumstance, Mr. Speaker, where we are looking

at trying to make the least offensive and the least damaging reductions because

we do not have the money that we had last year and the year before. So when you

have less money to spend, then you have to look at some things that you did

before that you cannot continue to do. Nobody should have the understanding or

be even thinking that the government of this Province is looking at instituting

busing in the City of St. John's. It will not occur. It is not on the agenda. As

a matter of fact, we will be looking to other centres, and if the circumstance

prevailed, Mr. Speaker, where there was public transportation available in other

centres like in the City of St. John's, you should expect to see from this

government (inaudible), where a busing policy like in St. John's would be

instituted elsewhere, not that the busing system elsewhere would be instituted

in St. John's.

The history, Mr. Speaker, just briefly, is that when the

former government, even before this government was elected in 1989, addressed

this issue, there were objections from the City of St. John's that they did not

want the government of the Province to put yellow school buses in direct

competition with the Metro buses. They said they didn't want that. The policy

within the city, as a matter of fact, says that unless Metrobus agrees that

there should be school busing provided, the Province is not allowed to put it in

there.

With respect to the neighbourhoods that were affected this

time, there is no difference, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of

ability to pay in many of these neighbourhoods than there are in other

neighbourhoods in the city where there haven't been school buses for years. Some

people legitimately will have very difficult times paying for a bus fee they are

not used to paying for. In the other neighbourhoods in the City of St. John's

where they have been doing that for years consistently, no one should assume

that every family in all of those neighbourhoods is flush with money, because

they aren't. There are families on social assistance in many other

neighbourhoods in this city who have been finding a way to either pay for a bus

fee, find alternate transportation to the school from family means, or walk.

These are the circumstances that will now apply in all of the neighbourhoods in

St. John's.

It is not that the government looked around and said: We

would like to reduce this. This government, Mr. Speaker, has consistently told

the people of the Province that we don't have a lot of choices. We are trying to

make the least painful choices. We have heard now they want some money put back

for prescriptions, they want some money put back for long-term care, want some

money put back for busing. If you put all the money back then I guess we might

as well all close up shop and go home. We won't have any borrowing capability,

we will all be bankrupt, and we quit.

So we have made difficult choices, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: This is one of them. In review, there isn't

anything that suggests there will be anything any different or any more harmful

to parents and students in the neighbourhoods that will now be treated just like

all of the rest of the neighbourhoods in St. John's than in other

neighbourhoods. There is no adverse impact above and beyond what other people in

other neighbourhoods have learned to live with.

It is an adjustment, it takes some time. We are concerned,

and the families will make sure that they themselves protect the safety of their

children first and foremost; because in the area of old Pennywell Road the

Metrobus, Mr. Speaker, stops on the other side. If the family decides they can't

afford or will not use the Metrobus and decide to have their children walk, then

they have to walk across Columbus Drive to get to any school that serves the

area. If they find a way to buy a bus pass or if they find alternate means of

family transportation, or pooled transportation, like they do in all the other

neighbourhoods of St. John's now, then they will get their students back and

forth to school.

With respect to in the city and outside the city, the issue

outside of St. John's is this: Students and parents and families of students are

entitled to a school bus if the distance is outside 1.6 kilometres.

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

The hon. minister's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Opposition doesn't want to hear any further comment on

the issue, that is fine.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess good things come to those who wait. I've been waiting

to present my petition quite awhile. I guess that is further proof of the number

of things out in our society that people wish to petition the government on.

I wish to present a petition to the House of Assembly on

behalf of some 7,000 people, along with the petition on behalf of 5,000 people

that my colleague presented, to voice opposition to the changes in prescription

drug fees. As the Minister of Education just mentioned, he is suggesting that we

are asking to re-instate everything, put everything back. This is not what we

are asking them to do and I don't think it is what the general public is asking

them to do.

There have been several prescription drugs that have been cut

from the prescription drug program offered by Social Services. We haven't stood

in the House and asked for those to be reversed, we are asking for the

dispensing fee to be reversed. With the changes to education, educational

reform, there are several areas there where they are saving millions and

millions of dollars. We are not asking that they reinstate everything. We are

asking that they reinstate the busing. We are being reasonable. We realize that

the Provincial Government must be fiscally responsible, but the cuts are too

many and too deep.

To get back to the petition that I am presenting on behalf of

the social services recipients, I spoke to several people who have called and

said that they have gone to Wal-Mart or Dominion to have their prescriptions

filled, and have waited in line for up to two hours, and when they finally got

to the counter to be served, the pharmacist said they were out of that

particular drug because of the high demand of people going for the lower charges

for dispensing.

There are also suggestions by the Minister of Health that

people have their prescriptions filled in hospital dispensaries. I don't know if

the Minister of Health has visited one of these drug dispensaries in the

hospitals, but we have also heard from people that these are situated in areas

of the hospital that are probably not always wholesome to go, especially for

children or for family members, such as across from morgues and so on where

there would be bodies lying on stretchers waiting to be admitted to the morgue.

That is probably unreasonable. Furthermore, the hospital dispensaries do not

carry all drugs that drugstores carry; nor do they have the staff to fulfil the

demand that would be created by people going into the hospital dispensaries.

All we are asking for here is that the prescription drug

dispensing fees be reinstated. The government is taking a class of people who

cannot afford to pay this fee, the social services recipients and holders of

drug cards, the people who are least able to afford to pay this fee, and asking

that they become even more indigent, and I think that is a shame. This is a

class of people who cannot afford to pay this drug dispensing fee; they cannot

afford to pay Metrobus fees.

As I have mentioned, these cuts are too severe and there are

far too many cuts. The recipients of social services have now been faced with

several cuts, the cut of the $61 emergency fee as well as cuts, as I have

mentioned earlier, to prescription drugs that are no longer covered by the

government. To put upon them the burden of a $3 dispensing fee on top of all of

this, when you put it all collectively together, it is just far too much for

many people to handle and, in the long run, this is going to create a much

larger expense to the government when these people's health decline and we have

to pay more medical expenses to cover that fee.

I do not think we are being unreasonable in asking for this

dispensing fee to be reinstated. I do not think we are asking too much to have

school busing reinstated. We agree with some of the cuts that have been made,

but there have been far too many cuts, and I am asking the House, and most

especially the hon. the Premier and the Minister of Health, to reconsider. As

you have made a knowledgeable decision in reconsidering the fee for seniors in

nursing homes, reconsider this. Have a second look. The pharmacists have gone -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. OSBORNE: As I have said, all we are asking is that

you reconsider the changes in the prescription drug dispensing fees. The

pharmacists have gone - the Minister of Health has said that he has looked at

their proposals on how to cut the cost of social services drug cards, or the

cost to the government on behalf of the pharmacies. All we are asking is that

you probably have a second look at what they have proposed, and have a second

look at the dispensing fees. It is a reasonable request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What I have heard in this Assembly today, admitted to by the

Minister of Health, is nothing less than shocking. The Minister of Education

stands up and says that this government is making tough choices. Now, on this

issue, and specifically this issue, here is the choice that the Minister of

Health and the Cabinet have made: On the one hand, they have introduced a

government policy that will see small businessmen and businesswomen in this

Province, crushed. On the other hand, that policy unto itself will see

conglomerates like Dominion and Wal-Mart who admittedly and publicly, in their

own publications, admit that they are selling at loss leader which amounts to an

unfair trade practice - of which I believe the Pharmaceutical Independent

Pharmacists in this Province have a legal case to pursue because it amounts to

an unfair trade practice - that they are supporting that.

Here is another choice that is a result of this government's

policy. The Minister of Health, two months ago, in the spring sitting of this

House, indicated publicly that if people have a problem with the fee, visit

Dominion, visit Wal-Mart where they can pay $1.99 fee. He may deny it now, but

the reality is that he said it, and not only did he say it, Mr. Speaker, to the

media and to the people of the Province, but he said it right here in this

House.

The other irony, Mr. Speaker, which is unbelievable; this is

unbelievable, that at the same time this policy is forcing small community

drugstores to close up shop; in small communities throughout rural Newfoundland

and Labrador, the Department of Social Services is going to pick up the tab for

social services recipients to travel fifty miles, sixty miles, seventy miles, to

get their drugs, but, Mr. Speaker, the reality - I mean, the people in the

gallery here today must be shocked at what they have heard, they have to be.

What respect is there left for government when we see on the floor of the House

today, the Minister of Social Services admit it, saying that they will provide

transportation for people who need to travel to get drugs. If drugstores have

been closed down in one community, they will foot the bill, thousands and

thousands of dollars. And, on the other hand, the Minister of Health stands up

and says: We will let the free market prevail. I am absolutely shocked.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to point out.

The minister, in some of his commentaries back to the Leader of the Opposition's

questions today, talked about what is factual.

I will give the minister leave and I am sure that all

colleagues in this House today will give the minister leave right now, this very

moment, to take as much time as he needs to sit down or stand up in his place

and tell us where we presented today, in any aspect, in any form, what is not

factual. If he can provide that, if he can stand right there today and point

that out - and, Mr. Speaker, I doubt he can and he will not.

Now, the Minister of Education just referred to: We made

difficult choices; if we reinstate this, if we reinstate that, then there will

be no money.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is this, that five short months

ago, this government stood up and campaigned on a platform of a better tomorrow;

they did not say, We will make tough choices. In the Budget of May 16, they

stood in this House and said: There will be no decreases in health care, there

will be no decreases in social services; there will be no increases in taxes,

and what happens four months later? Can we say that that has actually

transpired? Can we say that that has actually happened? I would like to be able

to say that to the government and congratulate them but I cannot because what

has happened in truth and what has happened in reality is quite different,

radically different from what this government said five months ago and what this

government said in the Budget of 1996.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I will ask

the minister one more question, if he will stand to his feet: Why did you not

consult with the pharmacists in this Province? Because you did not? You cannot

say that you did because you know that you did not. You were in a scramble to

save money and you said you would take it off the backs - that was the decision

that you and Cabinet made, that you would take it off the backs of the

pharmacists. Those people whom we are talking about here today are professionals

in their own right. They can save you, minister, and they can save this

government millions of dollars if they were given half the chance and the

opportunity to do so.

Now, I ask you today two things: If, what any one of us on

this side of the House has said today is not factual, you have my leave and the

leave of my colleagues to point out where it is not. And the second thing I say

is: Why do you not sit down with the independent pharmacists in this Province

and ask them where they can save you money? Because they can.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to take a minute or two because I have already

responded to a previous petition and my comments would be about the same.

Specifically, I have sat down with the independent

pharmacists on a number of occasions. I have sat down with the association that

represents the full organization. I have sat down with a number of the

individuals who are pharmacists in their own right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I give this commitment in the House, and I

give this commitment publicly, that I will continue to work with the

pharmaceutical industry to try to achieve whatever we believe amongst ourselves

is reasonable in terms of measures to try to keep the drug program within the

perameters of the budget that we can expend. As a matter of fact, I will be

meeting with the pharmaceutical association in their annual meeting in

September. They invited me the other day to be with them in September. I look

forward with pleasure to sitting down with them and having a discussion.

I met with a number of individual pharmacists last week in

Corner Brook and I have met with some this morning. I have to tell you that we

do have -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do this morning? Tell us

again.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - we have always had -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us again what you did this morning!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, would you speak to the hon.

member over there and ask him -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is trying to hear the comments made by the hon. the

Minister of Health as well.

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Member for Kilbride gave me

leave of all the members but he is having difficulty enforcing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth! Tell the truth!

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I committed to give the

Minister of Health leave if he could point out anywhere in what I said or any

member said, anything on this issue was not factual. I did not give him leave

unconditionally.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, and the hon. the

Minister of Health was not speaking by leave. He was speaking in his allocated

five-minute time for debate on petitions.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just conclude by saying that we have open lines of

communication with the association that represents pharmacists. We have various

committees in place that are working on a number of initiatives. We will

continue to dialogue and work with them. And not only are we willing, but

frankly, we need their support, their input, their co-operation. We will look

forward to working collaboratively with them in the future as we have in the

past to design a program ongoing for our social services recipients and our

seniors that will be affordable to the Province, that will not be threatened by

virtue of the cost that it continues to escalate by, and that will be fair and

on balance fair to not only the dispensing industry, but also the people who are

served by the programs.

We simply say no more than that we can afford to pay a

certain amount for these fees. We stand by that decision. We look forward in

that context to working with the industry to make improvements

whereas and when

necessary and appropriate.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition. I will read the prayer: We, the

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to petition the House of Assembly

to voice our opposition against the changes in the prescription drug dispensing

fee.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister has said today is absolutely

false. He gave the impression here today that he discussed a reduction in the

dispensing fee with the pharmaceutical association of this Province and the

consulting, and he did not. I say to the minister, you did not. That is a wrong

perception you are putting out there to the public and it is incorrect. I take

great offence to things in this House that have been said.

I take effort to make sure that what I present to the best of

my ability is factual. I contradicted the minister on things this morning,

earlier this afternoon in the House, in Question Period, that he indicated is

factual. My information says differently. The minister was asked by the Member

for Kilbride if anything that I stated here today was not factual he could stand

in the House and say so, and he has not done it.

I also took great pains to check on dispensing fees, in fact,

what they are. I made a call today, and they are currently, today, at Wal-Mart

$3.99, and today at Dominion they are $3.88, and there is a $2 extra charge if

it is a compound they are dealing with, for $5.99 and $5.88 respectively.

They admit that to get a share of the market, a part of

business, if you open up a new pharmacy or are a new owner, or to bring people

into a store to shop for other items, it is part of a practice. But for the

minister, the Premier, this government, and this Cabinet to force people to sell

prescriptions at below cost is an unconscionable thing and it is not proper.

Now, that is not fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have seen as many pharmacies close in

this Province since this Budget as we have seen in the previous two years. My

colleague, the Member for Bonavista South, talked about the relationship

established between a patient, or a client, and between the pharmacist. He

talked about rural areas but it happens in urban areas, too, I know that for a

fact. I know people visit the pharmacists and rely very heavily on them and

trust them. They are experts in that field. Doctors consult them on an ongoing

basis. That is part of the practice, the doctor/patient, pharmacist/patient

relationship that develops in the best interest of the patient, and for you to

force people out to shop - and I heard it in the news media, I heard your clip

and your voice telling people to shop around at Dominion. That is what you

stated and I heard it. And that is unfair, to tell people to go out and shop

around.

Are we next going to have mail-order prescriptions that are

becoming in fashion in certain areas? Are we going to send them by mail and get

a month's supply, or a two-month or three-month prescription? Medical conditions

of people change with time. People's physiological functions change and there

are different requirements for medication. The ongoing relationship with the

pharmacist and with the doctor is important to maintain the appropriate health

of an individual, and the minister has shown a blatant disregard, as Minister of

Health, towards the welfare of people here in this Province in terms of their

health care needs, not to say anything about the opportunity to provide equal

services in areas, and in a fair and appropriate manner throughout this

Province.

We have had four pharmacies close. I know of one particular

area where there is no longer a pharmacy and they are going to have to travel.

The Minister of Social Services said if their health is depending on it - that

is what she said here today, and you can draw whatever conclusion you want, but

I will draw the one that I think she meant, that if their health is at risk and

they need it to maintain their health or to get a prescription they will cover

the transportation costs, whether it is to get into a taxi here in St. John's

and go in to Wall-Mart and have the taxi wait until you get the prescription

filled and then go back to your home, that is basically transportation costs, or

in rural areas if you have to travel. I know many pharmacists and doctors, and

even more patients out there, when they go to a doctor, often before the

prescription is even written it is discussed with the pharmacist. The doctor

discusses with the pharmacist, the specialist in that area, as to the quantity

of medication, and the type of drug that might be most effective to control that

particular problem.

Now, I ask the minister to go back and revisit this. I ask

him to put facts on record here in this House of Assembly, not statements that

are not correct. I ask him to go back and sit down and start over again, have

discussions and look at the overall welfare of people here in this Province and

not discriminate in rural areas of the Province that do not have access to a

pharmacy, and, more importantly, apart from regional discrimination,

discrimination on individuals here on getting access to appropriate medication

at a price. And if you want to talk about price, we are charging now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will not take too much time, Mr. Speaker,

just very briefly.

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

leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister that we are charging

less than other provinces, and unless my information is incorrect, and the

minister gave information on these provinces here in the House this afternoon

that was not correct. He said the majority of provinces have a co-pay, and when

I indicated that five of the other nine do not, then he got back and admitted

that, so he admitted upon being corrected. He said Manitoba has one. He has

indicated the wrong one for Prince Edward Island, according to my information,

and information compiled by a reputable chartered accounting firm has shown that

our Province now is paying the least and below cost. We are asking them to

dispense drugs below cost. Well, if that is not forcing pharmacies out of

business that do not have the large stores around to maintain it in tough

financial times it is doing a disservice to the people who are served by those

particular pharmacies and it is not acceptable. I ask the Premier and his

Cabinet to reconsider this and instruct the minister to sit down with these

people and work out an avenue that can get reasonable savings here within the

proposals put forth. We know these are tough fiscal times, that is all the

reason more to consult. In fact, it was not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, that

people in this Province were almost bowled over with the word consultation,

almost bowled over with it every day, day after day. I will ask you to practice

what you preach, to consult and to look at avenues to be able to deliver, and

not on the backs of the people here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be long. I spoke earlier today on the same

petition. I would just like to ask the minister if he would take the report of

the committee, I think it is K-PMG - if he does not have a copy of the report I

will certainly arrange for him to get one.

MR. MATTHEWS: I have a couple of them.

MR. FRENCH: Do you? Well, I think it is probably time

that you read it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: - because you certainly have not read it. The

other thing I would like to ask you is: you said today you again met with people

of the pharmaceutical association or independent dealers - I would love to know

who you met with.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the

comments arising out of the petition raised by the Leader of the Opposition with

respect to the government's policy generally in the area of trying to maintain a

sound fiscal position.

The Leader of the Opposition - everybody in the House will

recall -at the time of the last Budget, made clear prior to the Budget, during

the Budget and after the Budget that he believed the government had to follow a

sound and responsible fiscal plan. As I recall, the Leader of the Opposition

talked about reducing the deficit to zero within three years. I think that was

the comment at the time.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well I am sorry, I have a copy of the -

then maybe the Leader of the Opposition has changed the position of the

Conservative Party as it was outlined to the people of the Province in the last

election campaign. Because I have a copy of it with me and, as I understand it,

the position of the party was to have a zero deficit within -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) said on Budget day (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry, within three years. I do

recall -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I do recall the Leader of the Opposition

made clear that he thought government had to be fiscally responsible; I do

recall that. Now, I say this to the Leader of the Opposition: It is clear that

no member of this House - whether the member sits on that side of the House or

sits on this side of the House - wants to have to take many, not just these two

that we have been talking about this afternoon, but many of the kinds of

decisions that we have been taking as a government, and many of the kinds of

matters that we have been -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I listened quietly and did not interrupt

the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask that he give me his usual same

courtesy.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, none of us enjoys

dealing with any of these kinds of issues. They are not pleasant, they are not

easy and they involve making choices that are not easily made, but I say to

members opposite, I think, with the decisions we have taken and with the total

fiscal plan that is there, the government generally is on a fiscal track that is

responsible, one that will get us through several very difficult years, and will

bridge us as a Province to the point where we get to the start-up of some major

resource projects. I will not go into the long list of those projects. We all

know what they are and where our economic circumstance begins to improve. Now,

having said that, if there are ways, if there are better ways, more efficient

ways, equally productive ways of finding those efficiencies, we are open to that

representation.

In the case of the long-term care rates affecting those in

long term care, we listened, we went through a series of consultations. The

Minister of Health had a variety of meetings with various individuals, groups

and associations and received representations here in the city of St. John's. We

had further representations when we went to the West Coast of the Province. We

considered the matter. The Minister of Health brought back a variety of options

and the Minister of Health, on behalf of the government, last Friday, announced

a new schedule.

With respect to the pharmacy - the issue of the rates for

drug dispensing - if there are proposals, hard proposals, that can be put down

that bring about hard cost savings, not theoretical savings, we would look at

those. The Minister of Health has said repeatedly we would look at those but, I

say to members opposite, let us have the representation; let us see the savings.

But let me point out, and I would ask members opposite to reflect upon this, in

the Province of P.E.I. today - P.E.I., by the way, has a budget surplus - in the

Province of P.E.I. today there is a co-pay. The Province of New Brunswick has a

budget surplus; there is a co-pay. The Province of Nova Scotia has a balanced

budget, or a budget surplus; there is a co-pay. The Province of Ontario, which

has slightly more, a tiny bit stronger fiscal capability than Newfoundland, a

slightly bigger budget than Newfoundland, a tiny little bit lower unemployment

rate than Newfoundland, the Province of Ontario - and, by the way, a province

with a Conservative government - has a co-pay. In the Province of Manitoba there

is a flexible co-pay.

Members opposite would say, `But there is no co-pay in

Alberta', and they are right, and there is a billion dollar surplus in Alberta.

And they would say, there is no co-pay in the Province of British Columbia. It

is one of the fastest growing economies on the North American continent.

So I say to members, we are struggling with difficult

circumstances. We frankly count upon the representation of members opposite on

these issues, but we look for, on occasion, some constructive advice, too.

Simply to stand and make noise without bringing forward constructive advice or

recommendations is not good enough, and I say to the party opposite that

campaigned on having a balanced budget within three years -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: It is not enough to simply say, `Reverse

all your spending decisions' without telling us how you would achieve savings as

well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has no intention of recognizing any other member

until there is order in the House.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a further petition on another

issue which has been of grave concern amongst ordinary Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians over the past several months, certainly since this present

government has taken office. I refer specifically to the issue concerning Crown

lands.

At a public meeting a couple of months ago, a meeting at

which the Minister of Government Services and Lands was present, it was

indicated at that time that the concerns of literally hundreds of ordinary

Newfoundlanders who attended this meeting, and who voiced their concerns loudly

in protest against decisions that were made with respect to new policies

concerning Crown lands and Crown land regulations in this Province, there was a

pledge by the minister similar to the indication given by the Minister of

Education on the issue of busing. There was a pledge by this particular minister

that the issue and the policy concerning Crown land would be reviewed.

I refer specifically to the request that was made concerning

an extension of time being granted to individuals beyond the October, 1996

deadline for the payment of the freehold interest with respect to their

property. It was simply recognized by those people present. They did not oppose

the concept of the purchase of property. They did not oppose the concept of the

purchase of a freehold interest. What they simply requested was time to do so,

because $1,000 or $1,500 or $2,000 or $2,500 was simply out of reach for many of

these individuals who have small cabins out on Crown leases throughout this

Province and who were not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to come up with these

funds within a relatively short period of time.

Last week I called the minister's office to see if there had

been a decision made with respect to this simple request, that there be an

extension of time granted to these hundreds of Newfoundlanders who are adversely

affected by this particular policy. I wanted to find out simply, had there been

a change made with respect to this. My understanding in response at that time

was that no decision had been made. This is approximately a couple of months

after the meeting and after the requests had been put forward. We are quickly

approaching the October deadline which is the expressed cut-off date pursuant to

the change in policy with respect to the purchase price of Crown grants.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition before me. It is signed by a

number of Newfoundlanders who reside in various communities throughout the

Province. I will give you some examples as to where: North Harbour South,

Markland, Blaketown, Branch in St. Mary's Bay, Freshwater in Placentia Bay, and

several in St. John's. Indeed, this is representative of many Newfoundlanders

who feel affected, unjustly and unfairly in their minds, by this policy, which

again is a result of poor planning, lack of vision, lack of any comprehensive

plan, lack of any willingness by this government to simply sit down and discuss

with people who are affected by such a policy, ways of working it out together.

That is all they ask. Rather than the guillotine approach, an approach which

takes into account their interests, their concerns, and hopefully, their

willingness to co-operate. I would suggest, just as these people here who are

affected by this Crown lands policy, they are prepared to work out a solution in

recognition of difficult times. That is all they ask.

I present this petition to this hon. House this afternoon, on

behalf of a number of Newfoundlanders who simply request that government review

this policy. I would call upon the minister, either now or in the near future

when he is in a position to do so, to give this House some indication as to when

it can be expected:

a) if there will be change, and

b) what those changes will

be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And The Education Act," Bill No. 8.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You do not have to stand to be heard.

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

Schools Act And The Education Act". (Bill No. 8)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is significant that the Legislature is here in

July, in the middle of the summer, to deal with this particular issue. Because

of the significance, while I am not known for being lengthy in any address to

the Legislature, and I will not be today, there are a couple of comments with

respect to context and also with respect to the actual intent of the bill that I

might like to put on the record in Hansard for public consumption both now and

in the future as people continue to study and research the issue of the

continuing evolution of the education system in the Province.

It is clear, and I think everybody understands, that last

week the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs presented the

final report of a series of hearings which it held to consider the request of

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to amend Term 17 of the Canadian

Constitution. I was very pleased, and the government was very pleased, to learn

that the committee has recommended that the Senate approve the resolution to

amend Term 17, which has already received the approval of this House of Assembly

and of the House of Commons in Ottawa.

It is particularly gratifying, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate

Committee concluded that the process followed by the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador and used to generate the amendment was a fair process, and I quote

from the committee report, Mr. Speaker, that states: Each of the protected

minorities whose rights would be affected were afforded full opportunities to

participate in the public debate leading up to this amendment, including and

beginning with the hearings before the Royal Commission on Education, the

referendum and the general election of 1996.

The process, Mr. Speaker, which the government of this

Province has followed to reform the organization of our education system, has

been long in detail and includes of course, the following: The re-organization

was recommended in the first instance by a Royal Commission following extensive

public debate and research in the Province. The Commission made that type of

recommendation and when it handed in its report in March of 1992, over four

years ago, the government, Mr. Speaker, through some three years attempted to

negotiate a model for re-organization with the church leaders with some areas of

success but no general conclusion of an agreement.

The question, Mr. Speaker, of amending Term 17 was the

subject of public debate and a provincial referendum which was held on September

5 of 1995. As well, Mr. Speaker, a general election was held in the Province on

February 22, 1996 and during that election the platform of the current

government with respect to education reform was clearly stated for everyone in

the Province to see. This Legislature, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions, by

resolution, requested the federal Parliament to amend Term 17. The second time,

on May 23, 1996 the provincial Legislature, Mr. Speaker, unanimously re-affirmed

its wish to have the federal Parliament proceed with the necessary resolution to

amend the Federal Constitution.

On June 3, 1996 the House of Commons, by a significant

majority, Mr. Speaker, 170 to 46, voted to amend Term 17 as requested by the

Province and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Interesting to note,

that in that debate and in the days leading up to that debate, the request from

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the forays made to the

parliamentarians, the members of Parliament from across the country, were

supported by all three political leaders and all three political parties in this

Province, and we would like to go on the record again, Mr. Speaker, as thanking

the official Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic

Party, both members of this Legislature for their unanimous support in

encouraging the Parliament of Canada to take that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The Senate Committee then, finally, Mr.

Speaker, and lastly on legal and constitutional affairs as I mentioned, has now

recommended that the Senate pass the resolution to amend Term 17 after hearing

from all parties, all interested stakeholders and again noting the unanimous

support of all political parties in this particular Province. They have

recommended in their majority report that the amendment to Term 17 be passed as

proposed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador without further

amendment.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it does not appear that the

Senate of Canada will reconvene before, maybe as late as the end of September;

nonetheless, we all understand that a new school year is quickly approaching and

it is necessary for us to move on and to commence the long-awaited reforms.

The process of reform has been long and arduous and has

created a sense of uncertainty amongst our students, parents, teachers and other

school board administrators. We must act responsibly to remove this uncertainty

and to re-establish, Mr. Speaker, a sense of stability for those who learn and

teach in our schools. We must re-establish the high degree of confidence which

has been the hallmark of our schools over the years.

Given the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a high level

of concurrence to the creation of ten interdenominational boards and a

provincial school construction board, and the fact that the amendment to Term 17

has passed in this House of Assembly, in the House of Commons and has been

recommended by the Senate Committee, we have decided to proceed immediately

rather than risk another year of delays.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We are confident then, Mr. Speaker, that the

people of the Province and educational organizations will see this as an

appropriate and necessary move if we are to proceed with our much needed

education reforms. Representatives of the denominations which hold rights in

education under the current Term 17 and the various stakeholders in education

have stated publicly that they support government's plan to create ten

interdenominational school boards and a single school construction board.

In the legislation that is contained in Bill 8, Mr. Speaker,

that this particular House is being asked to consider today, it provides for the

following: the division of the Province into ten school districts instead of the

current twenty-seven; the creation of ten interdenominational school boards

consisting of eighteen members, twelve of whom shall be representatives of the

denominations and six of whom shall be at-large members as provided for in the

new Term 17; the authority for the minister to dissolve the existing school

boards at the appropriate time; the authorities contained in Bill 8 for the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council for the Cabinet to appoint interim school boards

which will exist until the next general election of school boards which is

scheduled for the fall of 1997.

There is authority in this bill, Mr. Speaker, to establish

denominational committees at each of the ten new boards. There is authority for

the continuation of all existing schools as they are for the 1996-97 school year

because that school year is already completely planned. There is also authority,

Mr. Speaker, for the creation of a provincial school construction board which

will distribute school construction funds on the basis of provincial priorities

and there is also provision for the establishment of a provincial Commission

colier francophone for the francophone population of the Province.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the majority

of the people of this Province are anxious to build on an education system that

is fair and equitable for each and every student. The proposed reforms will

alter the rights in education which are presently held by the denominations and

will move some of the rights currently exercised by the denominational

authorities to the elected representatives. All schools will continue to be

denominational in character and all students will continue to have the

opportunity to participate in religious education, observances and celebrations

at their schools.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, the passage of this bill will ensure

that education reform in Newfoundland and Labrador will proceed in a timely

fashion. It is imperative that in these times of rapidly declining enrolment and

increasingly scarce resources the current complex system with its duplication of

school boards, administrative offices and schools be fundamentally redesigned

for educational excellence and fiscal responsibility. We believe and contend

that the people of the Province support the contention that the children of the

Province deserve no less.

After full debate, Mr. Speaker, over the next couple of days

in complete examination, clause by clause of the bill in Committee of the Whole,

we will be asking the Legislature of the Province to approve Bill 8 so that we

can get on with the beginnings of education reform in the Province.

Rather than take this time at the point of introduction of

the bill, Mr. Speaker, to go through the clause by clause in detail because I

believe the members have had the bill for some time in advance, at least the

most recent draft version of it - there has been an examination of it - we are

considering and will consider whether or not there are any necessary amendments

that we should move at the committee stage when we do clause by clause

examination. The principles of the bill are established, I have highlighted them

in the commentary made, Mr. Speaker, and if there are necessary amendments that

will make these principles more readily applicable with more proper legal

language then we will indicate that to the House as we go through Committee of

the Whole in detailed examination clause by clause.

We certainly, Mr. Speaker, would listen to the full

participation and invite all members to participate fully in the debate even

though there has been an extensive and an exhaustive debate in the Province for

a number of years and would hope that at the end of the debate there could

possibly again be unanimous support for this particular bill so we can move

ahead with the beginnings of much needed education reform.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I introduce the bill for second

reading, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise in support of the bill introduced by the

minister for second reading, Bill No. 8, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act And

The Education Act."

It is an historic day, Mr. Speaker, in that we are at the

cumulation of a process which started being debated many years ago in this

Province and has led to a constitutional amendment that is one of great

controversy from time to time in this Province, and one that was called upon by

people for many years to bring about some reform in the school system in this

Province, not merely to provide for efficiencies but also for philosophical

reasons because of the strong belief of so many people that we need not

segregate our children by religion for the purpose of schooling.

So there are two reasons, Mr. Speaker, for this step forward.

One is the greater efficiency of having schools amalgamated for the purposes of

providing higher quality education to all of our children. The other reason is

to provide, for philosophical reasons, a more integrated teaching for our

children and not segregation by religion, except in those instances where people

feel strongly enough, because of their particular religious beliefs, that they

desire to have their children educated in a uni-denominational school.

Now we are not, at this point in time, into any controversy

over the rules as to how the uni-denominational schools will be determined, what

the rules will be for viability. That debate has been left for later, but for

the present we have the implementation of the principles of the new school

regime as contained in the provisions of the constitutional amendment which was

recommended as being needed by the Williams Royal Commission in order to

accomplish the kinds of changes that were contemplated. It has gone through the

process of a referendum, and I do not praise the process of referendum in this

particular instance. It was not one that was as open as it should have been.

There was not sufficient room for debate prior to the wording of the referendum

being presented to the people of the Province, and it was at an inopportune

time, over the summer. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the results of the referendum

were clear in that the majority of people supported the changes that were

contained in the proposed new Term 17.

We are, at this stage, having gone through a debate in this

Legislature over the wording of Term 17, some proposed amendments which were not

successful, but ultimately a majority - two-thirds majority, in fact - of this

Legislature supported the first round of debate on Term 17, and indeed after the

election of February of 1996 a resolution received unanimous consent, or

unanimous support from this House, to have the Senate of Canada, or the House of

Commons, rather, in Parliament of Canada, deal quickly with the request by the

government and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland to have Term 17 amended.

We have been through that process, Mr. Speaker, with a

delegation from this Province, an all-party delegation of which I had the

privilege and honour of participating in, to present our views to the Parliament

of Canada in support of Term 17 as passed by this Legislature and the people of

the Province.

Since then, Mr. Speaker, I guess the Senate has now made a

recommendation from its committee to the whole of the Senate to pass the bill

without amendment, but the Senate undertook a consultation process that perhaps

should have gone on the summer before. It should have gone on during the

referendum, or during the debate leading up to the wording of the referendum, as

to whether or not the proposed term was going to have negative effects on

minorities, as to whether or not it had gone far enough by way of reform.

Perhaps that is the kind of consultation that should have taken place after the

proposed wording was put forth. It did not, and I think that the Senate perhaps

performed a useful service over the last couple of weeks, a little bit too late,

but nevertheless the wording got a full airing in the Newfoundland Hotel over a

period of a couple of days, widely covered by the media, with lots of

participation by all of those who were interested in the process.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of the interest in the

Senate in particular on this legislation had to do with this notion of minority

rights. I would like to put on the record here what I did in the Senate hearings

concerning that issue because I think across the country it was not widely

understood that the Term 17, and the denominational school system in

Newfoundland was, at the time of Confederation, quite unique in Canada. In fact,

after the amendment of Term 17 and the changes to the Education Schools Act that

are contained in this bill, it is still unique in Canada and, in fact, uniquely

offers to the adherence of the protect