April 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 17

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly six scouts from the 1st Torbay Scouts B Troop, and their

leaders, John Wheeler and Marion Charron.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

Minister of Natural Resources. I have been advised that the minister has been

heard on radio, during a radio interview, talking about his attempts, or his

department's attempts, to ensure that the Federal Government, or whatever agency

is responsible, doesn't eliminate as an option in a spray program, the use of

fenitrothion in any government spray program that it might undertake this year.

Is that an accurate report? If not, can he tell me what is accurate?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, right now there are only two

insecticides approved by the Federal Government for spray against, I think it's

the hemlock looper, and I think there may be more than two for the budworm.

I have taken the position that I would like to keep our

options open until we make our decisions, based on the need to protect our

forests. I have certainly made that position clear.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the minister hardly made it clear then, I can tell

him. He said there were two insecticides approved by the Federal Government -

the regulatory agency, I presume, of the Federal Government - for spray against

the hemlock looper and the spruce budworm; is that correct? Is that what he just

said?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two against the hemlock looper.

MR. SIMMS: Two only against the hemlock looper, okay,

which is the problem that we are facing. Can he tell me what two insecticides

have been approved?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there are two. One is Bt, and

one is fenitrothion. These are the only two that are approved at this time for

use against the hemlock looper.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, we know this

government's history and record in the past, of opposition to the use of

fenitrothion, blatant, vociferous opposition by certain members opposite,

particularly when they were on the Opposition side, the former biology teachers,

and people like that, and the former Minister of Forest Resources and Lands who

sits in the front bench, and the Member for Fogo who has spoken out about it

many, many times - and we have all the clips from Hansard and so on. Why is the

minister now holding out hope that maybe the government might want to use

fenitrothion? I thought this government and this party stood for the use of Bt

only. What has happened to change their philosophy?

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

DR. GIBBONS: We have never changed any philosophies, Mr.

Speaker. We have said that we want to maintain our options. In the past five

years, we have not had a severe infestation that needed consideration of

anything except Bt; back in '89 a very small area was covered with Bt and each

year, since that time, a small area has been sprayed with Bt and even at that

time when we decided to go with Bt, we did not say that we would never ever

consider the use of other alternatives if they were necessary; and all I have

said to the federal minister is that I like to maintain our options open in case

there is a need, and that's the situation.

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

MR. SIMMS: I think, the last time fenitrothion was used,

I was the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands, so I say to the Minister of

Natural Resources well, I am pleased to hear that response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, in light of the negative howls

from the government benches, may I ask the Minister of Natural Resources now, to

tell this House, does the government support the use of fenitrothion in the

spray program against the hemlock looper? Does the government support the use of

fenitrothion?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Excuse me, does the government support the use

of fenitrothion or does it not?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member

tomorrow what we are going to use in our spray program this year. I have a draft

copy of my statement that I intend to make tomorrow before Question Period and

we will tell you then, what we will do this year.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this: What

is going to change from today to tomorrow that he can't tell the House and the

people in the Province now, what their intention is? I mean, why doesn't he tell

the House today what he intends to do? You have it there in front of you. Why

are you going to hold it off until tomorrow? Announce it today, don't wait until

the last day the House is open so that there can't be any questions about it

afterwards. Why doesn't the minister announce it today?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: No, he doesn't need leave. We will give him

leave under Statements by Ministers after Question Period is over, of course to

make his statement. Would he be prepared to do that then, after Question Period?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I want him to give the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think we have the question. I will wait for the minister to

give the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I think we have the question. I will wait for the minister to

give the answer.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members so desire, I

will be glad to do my statement after Question Period today. I have a draft that

wasn't finalized so I did not have it ready to go to my critic today. Otherwise,

I can deal with the draft, but I don't have a copy that I can table.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we are quite happy for the

minister to make his statement afterwards. I'm asking him a question. Is the

government going to spray with fenitrothion or is it going to spray with Bt? Can

he answer that question?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Wait for my statement, I say to the hon.

member, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: That isn't good enough, is it? I'm asking a

simple question. Is the government intending to undertake a - if members

opposite would be quiet, they would hear the question - it is pretty

straightforward.

MR. LUSH: Three times.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, three times, exactly, in a different way,

I say to the former Speaker. The former Speaker ruled perfectly. Does the

government intend to undertake a spray program against the hemlock looper, and

will it be using Bt or fenitrothion? a simple question.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if you will give me the time, I

would like to put this in the context of my statement, so I will do my statement

now.

I would like at this time to inform the House about the 1995

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister can't read a statement in Question Period.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. The minister knows that there have been quite a few reports lately

from many districts around the Province that were not able to find enough people

to fit the criteria in order to qualify for the emergency job creation program.

Can the minister now tell the House, as time has passed now, how much of the

funding was left over, and how many weeks were not used? Can the minister at

least give us some numbers on those now?

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

Labour Relations.

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

Let me say to the hon. member as I said before, this program

was a new program. We feel that there is a lot to be learned in this program.

No, we don't have all the numbers in yet. We are going to do a comprehensive

look at the whole program. We are going to ask all those who participated,

which, I might add, I say to the member, was quite a few groups around the

Province - quite a few in his district, I might add. When we have the thing

completed, I will bring that report to my colleagues and we will have a look and

make sure that everybody understands.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I agree with the minister's first statement,

it wasn't much of a program. I realize you don't have all the exact numbers, but

I'm sure by now that the minister must have some idea, a ball park figure, at

least, as to how much funding was left over. So, I will ask the minister again

when he rises to answer that particular question and also the rationale and sole

purpose behind this program was to give people an opportunity to work and

receive enough insurable weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. Now can

the minister tell us if that was truly the intent of this program?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that

the program had many intentions. I guess the prime intent was to try and provide

meaningful employment throughout the communities, throughout the Province within

the communities, to do things that were meaningful. I think we satisfied

ourselves that those applications were meaningful and yes, we did hire people on

and I think just about all of them have found themselves in a position to apply

for UI. I suppose in retrospect we may have directed the funding in a different

sense but again, as I said, it was a new program, I think a very objective

program with a new approach. I think the member will find in time, as will the

people in the Province, that it was exceptionally meaningful. It got a lot of

good things done and a lot of people benefit from the program.

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

for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary. I

will say to the minister that I agree that there were some meaningful projects

there, there is no doubt about it but it certainly came short of adequate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in particular, in the St. John's area for

example they were able to find, I say to the minister, people to avail of the

program, which was good. Also the unemployment rate decreased in the St. John's

area which was good but, Mr. Speaker, as a direct result the number of

qualifying weeks in St. John's rose from twelve to thirteen. I just confirmed

that with the unemployment office just an hour ago, therefore these people will

find themselves one week short of qualifying for UI benefits. Now, Mr. Speaker,

what does the minister plan to do to help these people cross that finish line

and of course avail of the unemployment insurance program?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. member that prior to the conclusion of

the program, the department and the officials and I became aware of the fact

that the qualifying period for the St. John's area had gone from twelve to

thirteen weeks.

We went back to those groups that had availed of the program

and identified some individuals, not all, because some of the individuals had

nine, ten, and eleven weeks work and only needed two or three weeks work, we

found ourselves making an adjustment. I would suggest to the member that we have

qualified all of those people in St. John's with an extra week, as I understand,

which was really worthwhile. Some projects were not totally finished, and to put

that extra week on gave them the opportunity to complete the work.

I know there were some libraries that were updated, new

shelving put in, books and those kind of things, within the city and in rural

Newfoundland. Recreation centres were modified and put in better condition. To

my knowledge for most of the people in the city, where thirteen weeks were

required, we fulfilled that obligation.

MR. SIMMS: Since last week?

MR. MURPHY: No, not since last week, I say to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, but prior. If the member had done his homework he

would have found out that we were notified a month ago that the twelve went to

thirteen in the City of St. John's. It was not something that happened within

the last week.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. With the recent uproar from the people of Franois regarding

that announcement of a boat to service them to Burgeo, I ask the minister if he

had representation from the people of Franois before the tender for the service

was called?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not have

representation from Franois by a committee. I had visited the community myself,

and two officials from my department, where we held a public meeting in the

community. Just about everybody, I suspect, from the community attended that

public meeting and we gave them the size of the boat and the type of vessel we

would be calling, and until yesterday there was nobody who came to my office

asking for a meeting, or attended a meeting.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For many, many months we heard the minister say he had been

consulting with the people of the South Coast, and that before a final decision

was made on the South Coast it would be again brought back to the people up

there. That is a forty mile run. It is hazardous at the best of times, and in

the wintertime it is worse than anything, and I have been there, Sir; I sailed

the South Coast. They wanted a specific service. Why would the tender, Sir, be

delivered the way it was? Why would the tender, when it came out, be so

open-ended? The tender itself, when it was called, was an open-ended tender

designed for the specifics, and the length of the ship was designed for the

comfort of the people who had to travel on it and use it.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the tenders that were called for

all the runs on the South Coast were designed for the people living in all of

those isolated communities. I might add that the concerns expressed to me

yesterday by the committee were not backed up by the majority of the people from

Franois.

A news media had called a number of people this morning to go

on an open line show early this morning and discuss the issue, and the people

said no, they did not want to get involved in it; they were quite happy with the

service; it was a vastly improved service over what they had been used to in the

past, and they saw no reason to be criticizing what they did not already yet

have in place.

The boat is down by the waterfront. There is a lot of work

that has to be done on the boat. The boat does not have to be ready until June

15, and the owner of that vessel, like the owners of all the other vessels

operating on the South Coast, will do the modifications necessary to put that

boat in the condition required by the specs of the tender, to provide the

service to the people on the South Coast.

I might also add, to the hon. member: I, too, have sailed

over a lot of water, and I know what the requirements are.

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

for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Probably with some

lily-pad, on a lily pond.

I say to the minister, up in the gallery we have Boy Scouts

represented here today. The Boy Scouts motto always was, and still is, `Be

Prepared'. Is the minister prepared, or is the Ministry prepared? What they

should be prepared for is to make sure that the people of this area, Franois to

Grey River to Franois, have a good service, and would the minister commit

himself and his department to make sure that those people get a good service?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I repeat again, Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

member, and members opposite who didn't hear what I just said, that an open line

show this morning had called a number of people in Franois to go on and comment

about the negativity that was expressed. They said: We have no problem with the

service. We know it's a six day a week service. We know the boat, and we are

quite happy with it, and are not going to get involved in any criticism. Now

that is the majority of people in Franois. I am not going to get into a debate

with the hon. member opposite over four or five individuals. They expressed some

concerns to me in a meeting. They expressed some concerns to me yesterday. We

have met today, myself and my officials, with the owner of the vessel. He

assured them that he would address every one of those concerns. Now I can't do

any more than that except cancel the tender. I have no reason to cancel it. They

will meet the tender requirements, and the service will be provided to the

people on the South Coast to the same satisfaction and the same requirements as

all other tenders that we've publicly called for all of the isolated communities

on the South Coast.

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

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Today I was called by a woman whose

problem was that she had twelve weeks of work and needed one week to qualify for

UI. She called the minister's office and was told that his department didn't

handle that, that she should talk to the MHA. I wonder, are those the minister's

instructions to his department? That the Ministry of Employment and Labour

Relations doesn't concern itself with those issues and that somehow the MHAs can

solve these problems without a program from the minister?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: No, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it is the

first that I've heard of the member's comment. He didn't raise it with me.

Second, no, I have not given any instructions to departmental officials to say

any such thing. Had the member known and I had known earlier within the program

time frame we may have very well been able to help the individual.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to hear

those are not the minister's instructions to his staff, and that we will pass

that information along to the staff who provided that. So I ask the minister, if

this is brought to his personal attention, whether or not he can see if there is

a possibility of fitting this particular individual or others into existing

programs.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: As the member may or may not be aware, we do

have a program, a bridges program, which is designed specifically for women.

Even though our employment creation program has now come to a conclusion after

March 31, I say to the member I would be happy to receive from him the

individual's name. If there is anything we can do under the structure of the

bridges program we would be more than happy to do so.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is

directed to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and housing. I

understand from the minister's office that government has approved a request

from the St. John's City Council to have the City of St. John's act amended to

increase from $100 to $5,000 the maximum fine imposed for a violation of the

act, thereby enabling council to crack down on landlords and others whose

property doesn't meet appropriate standards. Since this requires a minor

amendment to the City of St. John's act, and since the matter is of the utmost

urgency, will the minister give the appropriate notice of motion before the

House recesses for Easter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I'm feeling my heart, Mr. Speaker, because it

started to race a little bit there when the hon. member finally got to his

point. In fact, I'm thinking the hon. member was probably eavesdropping

yesterday when I spoke to the House Leader and asked him that very question here

yesterday afternoon. I don't think he was because I don't think he was in his

seat at that particular point in time. Yes, it is. Right after the Easter break

we should have the legislation ready to present. At that time, hopefully with

the concurrence from our friends opposite, this particular piece of legislation

will be dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Not from you. This particular piece of

legislation will be dealt with as soon as we possibly can after Easter, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, on a very closely related

matter. The Estimates for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing contain several

million dollars for constructing condominia and stand-alone residences at Marble

Mountain. I understand that despite heavy advertising by the Corporation and the

minister, very few people have indicated any interest in the venture. Will the

minister now consider redirecting this money from Marble Mountain, where

obviously it is not needed, to downtown St. John's and other parts of the

Province where desperate needs exist for social housing and housing for working

people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, at the Estimates Committee I think

basically that same question was asked me. We have not, as Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing, put aside dollars for expenditures at Marble Mountain this

year. The money that will be spent or expended at Marble Mountain this year will

come from - by the way, I would like to make this publicly known, over forty

applications, serious deposits have been made in relationship to the Marble

Mountain base development. We have had a tremendous response. The

article that

was written, and I am not sure which one of the papers it was in, but it was

totally incorrect. It was the opposite of what was said in the paper. We are

quite satisfied that up until last, I think, Tuesday there were forty serious

inquiries, even deposits made. So we are going to proceed immediately now to

contract out to the private sector the construction of these particular units

based on the amount of money that individual people around the Province, in

Canada, the United States and as far away as Norway have already invested into

their condominiums and will invest as the project proceeds.

So it is not a question of taking dollars that were labelled

for Marble Mountain and moving it into St. John's because that money is not

scheduled in our budget for that particular reason and I thank the hon. member

for giving me a chance to stand in the House and explain the misconception that

was out there for some days in regards to Marble Mountain.

Let me finish, Mr. Speaker, by saying this, that even though

I am from Conception Bay North I feel that Marble Mountain has a great future

that will offer people in Newfoundland and the rest of Canada a great

opportunity to come and visit and see what we've got to offer in Newfoundland

and Labrador. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that thanks to the hon. member, the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and all the other people who worked

so hard in the last three or four years to put together the development, we can

finally see what we have long been waiting to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Minister of Finance.

During the committee on the finance estimates I asked the minister a question on

a company that I had been advised had had some taxes owing written off. There

was a lien that had been attached to that company and 50 per cent of that lien

had been written off or lifted in order that the company could be sold. I didn't

use the name but the ministers staff knew the name of the company and the

minster had undertaken to get back to me in writing with the details. Can he

tell me when he is going to do that and perhaps then I will ask him a

supplementary question?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the officials were at the

meeting and they indicated they would do a write-up on it and get back to me. I

have not received that yet and I thank the hon. member for reminding me. I can

guarantee him that after Question Period I shall be going back and asking where

it is. I think in terms of the question, the Department of Finance has the

authority to write off taxes in certain instances, neither of which is simply to

allow the company to be sold. It has to go through a bankruptcy procedure or

something similar. However, the details I will see if I can get before the

afternoon is over.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have not

and I do not intend to use the name of the company but my understanding is that

the lien was lifted so that the company could be sold but that the company was

sold to an associate or a family member and is still operating. I want to ask

the minister if he would just clarify his position, like he just said, on the

policy of writing off bad debt? Will the minister confirm that it is not the

policy of government to write off taxes owing for a company so that they can be

sold, particularly to a family member or to another business associate? In other

words, not at arms length. If its saving a business that is one thing but if it

is simply being transferred that is another.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member

knows the policy. There are certain instances where monies can be written off,

one relates to time, another relates to bankruptcies, bankruptcy proceedings and

disposal of assets and so on. In these instances these things can be written

off.

I believe that there is a certain amount of leeway the

Department of Finance has in terms of writing off interest that is more than

three years old but even then, under very specific circumstances, so there is a

certain amount of leeway the Department of Finance has. Anything else, really

has to go to Cabinet for decisions so that's all I can point out to the hon.

member. No, under the circumstances he describes, we do not have the leeway to

write it off.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: A final supplementary.

When the minister is investigating this matter, will he

confirm for me that Cabinet did indeed, approve such a write off?

Would he also tell me: Is it the policy of government to

insure, in specific circumstances such as this, that if that debt is being

written off in order to allow that company to survive, in other words to save an

industry and to save jobs in the Province, that that is not giving an unfair

advantage to that company which is in competition with other companies in the

Province? In other words, that this whole deal is simply a manipulation to

eliminate some debts so that this company is in an unfair competitive advantage

with other similar companies?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to simply

confirm that the thrust of the hon. gentleman's question is exactly correct.

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

Extern.

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

I had a question today for the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology but he is not in his seat so I would like to direct my question

to the Premier.

Mr. Premier, there are briefing sessions tonight with respect

to the public hearings on the economic zones. Do you know if the minister has

received requests from individuals - or the people in his department - that this

meeting tonight be rescheduled or postponed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I saw the notices in the paper scheduling

the meeting but I am not aware that there is any request that it be postponed. I

am unaware of it, I don't know whether anybody in the minister's department has

been aware but I can check and let the hon. member know, if he wishes.

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

John's East Extern.

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

The public notice of tonight's meeting was in the April 8,

paper this past weekend and was a very short notice especially to the people who

made presentations at the public hearings. These people were informed that a

report of the public hearings would be sent to them, but they have not received

the report up until today or the weekend even though it was completed in

February, so would the Premier ask the minister to either reschedule those

meetings to give the people the proper time to review the reports and have

proper input to those public meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think the cure might be

worse than the problem if we attempted at this late stage in the proceedings to

cancel the meeting tonight. I would suggest that the meeting would continue and

if, as a result of the way the meeting goes, it becomes very clear that there

wasn't adequate notice and more people want to make a presentation, then I am

sure the minister could consider rescheduling another meeting later on, but I

don't think that cancelling the meeting proposed for tonight on such short

notice would be an appropriate course to follow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. BAKER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: I believe we would revert to Statements by

Ministers after Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the House agree to revert to Statements

by Ministers? Does the hon. minister have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to

inform the House about the 1995 hemlock looper control program. I apologize to

members of the House that I don't have copies of my statement. I have only a

draft marked up version.

Outbreaks of the hemlock looper in Newfoundland have been

recognized since 1912 but losses were not recorded until 1947. During two

outbreaks which occurred between 1944 and 1963, it was estimated that about 2.7

million cubic meters of wood were destroyed. In the next outbreak between 1966

and 1972, another 12 million cubic meters of merchantable wood were estimated to

have been destroyed with less than 20 per cent being able to be salvaged.

This outbreak, however, resulted in the first large scale

aerial chemical spray program being conducted in Newfoundland in 1968 and 1969.

It was estimated that these protection programs saved about 24 million cubic

meters of merchantable timber. Evidence suggests that hemlock looper outbreaks

of varying intensity prior to 1970 have been cyclical, lasting from five to

seven years with three to four years in between. Outbreaks tend to develop in

about two years, especially during warm, dry periods. High population levels

seldom persist for more than two years in any particular stand and declines are

usually associated with cool, wet weather, starvation and disease.

Mr. Speaker, the looper populations are on the rise again

this year. Since the looper can kill trees in one year, and two at the most, as

compared to four to five years in the case of the budworm we are very concerned

about the increased infestation and are determined that we must have a spray

program. The forecast for 1995 indicates that a total of 209,372 hectares will

be defoliated by the looper, with 119,093 hectares in the moderate and severe

categories.

The main areas of forecasted infestation are located in

Central and Western Newfoundland, from Noel Paul's Brook in the east to

Stephenville in the west, from Codroy Valley to Gros Morne National Park up the

West Coast. In addition,there are scattered pockets in various districts

throughout other parts of the Island. Numerous locations have very high egg

counts which indicate severe defoliation is likely during 1995. Moderate to

severe forecasts for last year was only 26,340 hectares compared to the 209,372

hectares in total for this year.

The looper is the only insect infestation at a level to cause

concern for this Province now. The spruce budworm is basically at a negligible

level. The problem in 1995 will be a very significant one with an increase in

both size and extent of the infestation. A control program to combat the looper

is necessary. While the total volume of wood affected by the infestation could

be 6.5 million cubic meters,this could result in a mortality this year of 2.3

million cubic meters if we do not have a control program.

It is estimated that a program which could range up to 75,000

hectares will be required in the moderate and severe areas. Spray blocks will be

mainly in the moderate to severe defoliation forecast categories with some light

forecast areas that are silviculture thinnings. It should be noted that last

year's program consisted of only 10,719 hectares compared to the more than

75,000 we are forecasting for this year. Last year's program was treated with

Bt.

Mr. Speaker, two insecticide types are currently registered

for the looper. The chemical, fenitrothion and the biological insecticide, Bt.

The department has only utilized Bt for the looper since 1988 due to the

relatively small programs required. As the looper population is increasing and

the area of infestation is significantly larger, there was a need this year to

consider the use of chemical insecticide as well.

Although chemical insecticides are viewed as less than

desirable, fenitrothion is the only such chemical insecticide presently

registered by the Federal Government against the looper. Its registration status

has recently come under special review within Agriculture Canada as a result of

concerns raised by Environment Canada, Atlantic Region.

Bt is environmentally more acceptable. Its effectiveness has

improved over the years, and it can be equally effective if applied under the

right weather conditions. Last year, for example, we had good results with Bt.

In a larger program, and with increasing insect population, extra measures would

be required to ensure timely delivery of Bt for it to be fully effective.

Mr. Speaker, after analyzing all factors, government has

decided to use Bt for this year's forest protection program against the looper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: A spray program over 75,000 hectares will

cost the government and industry in the order of $3.1 million to $3.6 million.

At least two bases of operation will be necessary, probably Buchans and Deer

Lake, with one or two teams of aircraft at each location. Additional aircraft

and bases may be required, and this will be determined after the proposed spray

blocks are finalized. Once final block size and locations are known, tenders

will be invited for the supply of spray aircraft and support services. As in

past years, specifications will be stipulated to ensure that bidders meet

minimum standards in terms of hardware, personnel, experience and availability.

Mr. Speaker, in consultation with my department and the two

pulp and paper companies, the Canadian Forest Service has proposed several small

experimental trials this year involving a new growth regulator called Mimic and

testing two new Bt products in an attempt to add additional tools to combat the

looper. These insecticides are approved by the Federal Government for

experimental use this year. The proposed program has been submitted to the

Department of Environment for review. Modification and licensing will take place

through the established procedures within that department. Also, any other

special environmental concerns will be addressed in co-operation with the

Department of Environment.

My Department of Natural Resources will make allowances for

any buffer zones around water intakes in communities as applicable and as

required by federal regulations. Further consultation with the Department of

Environment will take place to identify any further special cases.

My officials and company personnel will provide to the

public, and to any communities affected, the nature and location of spray

operations on request, and will answer any questions or concerns which may

arise.

Mr. Speaker, given the critical nature of the Province's wood

supply for the existing industry, we cannot afford to lose more wood to the

insects. All efforts will be made to deliver an effective forest protection

program this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, to say that this is a critical

time for the forestry industry in the Province, a statement made by the

minister, is an understatement. If I am not mistaken, some time ago - I don't

know if it was the minister or some officials in his department, made a

statement that if there were ten looper eggs found per leaf, that would be

considered a very serious problem to the forestry industry in this Province. My

understanding this year is that in most of the tests that have been done it is

up to as high as 300 eggs per leaf - 300 eggs per leaf - thirty times what would

be considered serious or critical in the forest industry or by forestry staff.

Now that, to me, although the minister said there would be 6.5 - 209,000

hectares affected this year, right in the heart of timber country, right on down

through the Humber Valley, the Northern Peninsula, I believe, up the Buchans

area as well, all out through the Stephenville area, right in the heart of

timber country, one of the worst infestations we have ever had.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the ten eggs per leaf that would

be considered critical or serious, versus the 300, as far as I'm concerned it is

just as well for us to have a spray program this summer using Black Flag, Right

Guard and probably Raid. It is the same thing. We have Abitibi-Price out there

crying for wood. We had from 1966-1972, 12 million cubic metres, out of which we

salvaged 20 per cent - 2.4 million cubic metres of wood salvaged out of a

possible 12 million cubic metres destroyed by the looper from 1966-1972.

Haven't we learned our lesson? We have Abitibi out there

crying for wood, screaming for wood. I had a delegation in last week to see me.

They have none to cut, no access. Kruger has most of it over on the West Coast

of the Province. Even the forestry report said six to seven years at most for

Abitibi-Price. And now we can stand by and watch this just because - what is

going to come first? What are we going to do? The forestry, are we going to

watch that die like we did the fishery and other things? This is a serious

problem in this Province.

Last year, we saw the price of newsprint go up 40 per cent.

The newsprint industry this year is enjoying one of the best years they ever

had. The forest industry, with regard to sawmilling, is enjoying the best year

it ever had - the best lumber prices in Canada. Last year, 57 million board feet

of lumber was produced in this Province, and a good amount of it was exported

out of the Province. So now is a time for action.

I say to the minister and members opposite that time will

tell. This is very critical to the forestry industry in this Province. It will

probably be too late. And if you don't get the Bt on - you need good weather

conditions for Bt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: You need prime weather conditions for Bt,

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: - and I say to the minister, they had

better take another look at this and make sure something is done to save the

forestry industry in this Province.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Member for

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Before you get into Answers to Questions - Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Kilbride was asking questions of the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board in the last few days. He asked if the minister was going to

tell us who was responsible for the authorization of double billing at Workers'

Compensation. The minister pledged to get that information before the House

closed for Easter. I wonder is he going to table it today, or has he forgotten

about it?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As hon. members know, we are into the Concurrence Debates,

and there is a time that they can take. We could go today until 5:47 p.m., so

because of that, I would like to make the usual motion that the House not

adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All in favour of the motion, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay.'

Motion carried.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Order No. 3(a).

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 3(a), a Concurrence Motion for

Government Services Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: 3(

a) or 3(b)? I'm sorry. Just to be clear, I

believe 3(

a) was the motion that the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board wanted called, the Government Services Committee, Concurrence?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, Social Services

Committee.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand today and introduce the Concurrence

motion relative to the Social Services Estimates

I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the

Committee for their work; the Vice-Chair, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount;

the jovial Member for Placentia; the Member for St. John's East and, on this

side, my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for Fortune

- Hermitage and the Member for Bellevue district.

Mr. Speaker, as we reported, we passed the Estimates of the

five departments that were under consideration and we did that without

amendment. The departments under the social sector were: Social Services,

Justice, Health, Education and Training, and Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I assume the members opposite will want to get

further into the debate, so I will just take a few minutes of time today to

first of all, summarize the gross government expenditures in the departments

that we were considering.

For instance, the Department of Social Services will receive

10.2 per cent of the total budgetary expenditure during the 1995-'96 fiscal

year; 26.4 per cent of the budgetary expenditure will go for the Department of

Health; 3.2 per cent for Justice; Education and Training will get 21.6 per cent;

Environment, .2 per cent. Mr. Speaker, these five departments make up 61.6 per

cent of our total budgetary requirements and if you lump Health, Social Services

and Education and Training together, they comprise 58.2 per cent of the Budget,

or in excess of $1.9 billion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you take into consideration that this

committee has examined the estimates of those departments which received more

than 60 per cent of the total budgetary expenditures, I feel that the time of

the Committee was well spent. Of course, I want to commend the ministers and

their officials, too. They did an admirable job defending the estimates of their

respective departments and the members, in turn, of course, also asked some very

meaningful and constructive questions.

Mr. Speaker, some of the highlights of the Committee meetings

- I was delighted with the comments made by the Member for Green Bay, who had

been substituting for one of the other members. The Member for Green Bay was so

impressed with the Budget, Mr. Speaker, that he told us he considered it to be

an election Budget. Mr. Speaker, that, in my opinion, is certainly an

endorsement of the government's Budget if I ever heard one.

I must say, our Committee worked well together, our meetings

ran rather smoothly and without too much controversy. Of course, there was no

press present for our meetings, so I guess that helped. As a matter of fact,

there were times when things went so well that I wondered sometimes if some of

the Opposition members hadn't crossed the floor. There was somewhat of a love-in

between the Vice-Chair and the Member for Waterford - Kenmount and the Minister

of Education and Training, the same was true for the Member for Bonavista South

and the Minister of Social Services.

Of course, the Member for St. John's East and our Government

House Leader, the Minister of Justice, were their usual cordial selves and it

wouldn't surprise me, after these two gentlemen retire, if you don't see a new

law firm on Duckworth Street, Harris and Roberts or Roberts and Harris, I am not

sure which. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, things went well and I want to once again,

thank the members of the Committee, and with these observations, I move adoption

of the Committee's report and leave the floor to those members opposite who may

have a burning desire to continue with the debate on the estimates of the

departments covered under the social sector.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the House would know, most of the issues that are being

raised here today, of course, have already been raised at the Estimates

Committee meetings, referred to by my colleague a few moments ago. However,

there are some matters that we would like to bring forward and I would like to

start off this afternoon commenting about some of the issues relative to the

Department of Health. To put that in focus, I want to read from the Campaign '89

Liberal Policy Manual. In 1989, the Liberal Party running for election made the

following statement in their policy manual: `Liberal health policy dictates that

as long as the demand exists, hospital beds must be kept open, institutions must

not be understaffed and compassion must always take precedence over business

administration.' Continuing on it reads, `If we cannot adequately care for the

sick, the disabled and the aged among us, we have failed as a society and we can

take cold comfort in cutting costs and improving balance sheets.' Now, Mr.

Speaker, that statement comes directly from the Liberal Policy Manual put

forward going into the 1989 election.

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen since then is a substantive

deviation from that particular policy. We have seen a situation where hospital

beds have been closed on a repeated basis, and each year there seems to be more

and more closures; institutions are under-staffed. All you have to do to talk

about under-staffing is visit any of our hospitals. I am sure that hon. members

opposite have talked to members of the nursing staff at hospitals, they have

talked to our personal care homes and you will find out that the situation is

that many people who are in desperate need of long-term and constant care are

not always cared for as they should be. Why? Because this government which in

1989 said that they would practice compassion, now has a total focus on

balancing the budget. While that might be admirable, we have to ask ourselves,

at whose expense? When we hear about cases involving seniors who are placed in

institutions where there is inadequate nursing staff because of cut-backs, then

we have to ask ourselves where our priorities really rest. I repeat what was

said in the policy manual of Campaign '89: `If we cannot adequately care for the

sick, the disabled and the aged among us, then we have failed as a society and

we take cold comfort in cutting costs and improving the balance sheets.' Well,

certainly, the present Administration must now take comfort in improving balance

sheets, because they certainly have been cutting costs.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the proposal to, for example,

change the transfer of personal care homes from the Department of Social

Services to the Department of Health has caused great concern. I have in my

possession here a letter from Geraldine Ruby, President of the Longside Club

which, of course, is a club which advocates for the disabled. In this particular

letter, the President writes -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I am sorry to catch you by surprise, Mr.

Speaker, but the Opposition House Leader has asked the hon. member to yield so

that I can provide an answer. I was just on my way out and the answer was given

to me to the question that the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern asked.

Here is the information I got: Tonight's meeting is an information session for

Zone 19 which includes the St. John's, Northeast Avalon and CBS region. Purpose:

to discuss the twenty-nine recommendations as outlined in the Task Force report:

Community Matters - the New Regional Economic Development. Non-governmental

people have chaired a number of these types of meetings, and Ms. Barb Genge is

supposed to chair tonight's meeting. There will be further meetings held by

various stakeholders to discuss setting up the provisional boards and appointing

representatives for such boards.

I hope that alleviates the concerns, and I am told there has

been no request for a postponement of the meeting, none at all, so the meeting

will go ahead and I am sure, if there is need for it, further meetings will be

held.

I thank the hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I was addressing the issue of

the transfer of personal care homes from the Department of Social Services to

the Department of Health and I was referring to a letter from Geraldine Ruby, in

which she expresses concern on behalf of persons with disabilities, about the

decision to transfer responsibility. She said, `I am astonished that government

could announce such a change without consultation with persons with disabilities

and the organization which represents them.' She continues to say that these

persons with disabilities are always vulnerable and she feels that this sudden

change in the way in which they receive support and services in order to

continue to be full participants in the community may serve to increase their

vulnerability.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government that before we implement

the full change, we should assure that persons who have disabilities are

adequately informed and that their concerns are adequately addressed. One of the

initiatives that I give this government credit for is they seem to have

recognized the need to adopt, what I would call, a healthy public policy. They

are at the initial stages of that and certainly there is a lot of research done

nationally and internationally that says that all aspects of government should

be reviewed in terms of the impact on public health.

I refer to the initiatives that were undertaken by the Member

for St. John's Centre when he was Minister of Health, relative to the smoking in

public places policy. That policy is certainly recognized as being a positive

policy, and while there might be people who might question some of the

implementation strategies, I don't think anybody would disagree with the intent

of the policy and with the statement which indicates that there is overwhelming

public support for that particular initiative.

However, I do have some concerns that the government has not

been more pro-active on things like bicycle helmets, the need for safety

equipment for skateboarders, and other types of recreational activities, because

one child in the Janeway for any length of time would cost more than a very

sound public relations policy to inform parents of the dangers and to become

more pro-active in prevention.

I say to the government that we are still spending too many

taxpayers' dollars after events have happened, instead of spending dollars to

try to prevent accidents, and to prevent injuries that people might be less

susceptible to if we had a more positive prevention policy.

MR. EFFORD: I say you are even starting to sound like

(inaudible).

MR. HODDER: I say to the hon. minister that a positive

public health policy, and a healthy public policy, are the very same thing.

Instead of having 90 per cent of our dollars spent making people better, we

should be spending 20 per cent of our dollars, at least, on prevention, because

all the research indicates that is where we have the long-term positive impact

on people's health, not to say anything at all about the quality of life that

people would enjoy as a consequence of it.

Mr. Speaker, the medical school - in the estimates we find

that there continues to be a very high proportion of the department's budget

allocated to the medical school. We view with concern, the fact that the

Province of New Brunswick, which has been allocated ten seats at the medical

school, has informed the government that it does not intend to access those

seats in the future. Mr. Speaker, this means, of course, that the cost of

running the medical school will continue to be the same as it always was;

however, the money coming from the Province of New Brunswick will cease to exist

as of the end of this particular year. I understand from the Minister of Health

that he intends to market those positions in the United States or elsewhere on a

full cost recovery basis.

I also want to comment on the fact that the medical school

continues to be under the Department of Health. However, this must cause some

concern to the Minister of Education and Training to find out that the medical

school does not operate under his direction. I do believe that this is probably

the only province where a medical school operates directly under the Department

of Health. In all other provinces, it operates under the Department of Education

and not under the Department of Health.

We view with concern, the lack of psychiatric services in

many parts of our Province. We are aware that it is difficult to recruit medical

specialists in various parts of Newfoundland and Labrador - not just to what we

would call the more rural parts of the Province, in some cases, it is difficult

to recruit specialists to go to places like Grand Falls or Gander or Corner

Brook, and even in some specialties, to St. John's itself. We want to draw

attention particularly to the difficulties that we have with attracting to this

Province, psychiatrists. The Minister of Health, in his presentations to the

Estimates Committee, indicated some of the frustrations that are experienced by

the department; of course, it results in long waiting lists, it results in

people having to endure long periods of anxiety before their needs can be

adequately addressed by professional services.

We also want to look at general recruitment of medical

personnel in rural Newfoundland. We were surprised to find out that it is still

very difficult to entice Newfoundland and Labrador high school graduates to

enter the medical school under a sponsorship program. In fact, last year, the

minister told us that all of the bursaries, or all of the agreements that the

department was prepared to enter into with prospective candidates, weren't even

taken up. As members may know, Newfoundland students are offered a subsidy of I

think it is $12,000 a year to assist in their medical school training. Last

year, there were offered ten positions in that category. Only seven or eight

were actually availed of by Newfoundland students. Even in these cases, we find

that when these students graduate they do not want to serve the rural

Newfoundland communities.

While there are sociological and lifestyle difficulties

associated with getting doctors to serve in rural Newfoundland, we recognize

that the need is there, and that it is a difficulty the minister has identified,

in fact, so much so that we continue to recruit medical personnel in South

Africa, in Europe. In fact, there are today in Newfoundland 112 doctors who do

not meet the exact criteria as set out by the Newfoundland licencing authority,

and therefore, are not fully licensed, but are permitted to practice in

Newfoundland with temporary permits.

Mr. Speaker, one of the initiatives that have been undertaken

in the public health area is the initiative of having public health nurses

assigned to specific schools and, of course, in the St. John's area there have

been some programs set up whereby the public health nurses are included as part

of the school staff. That varies from the older policy whereby the public health

nurses dropped by on a regular basis but they weren't considered part of the

school staff.

In the bigger schools in the St. John's area now, we do find

that public health nurses are assigned to a particular school. They keep the

same hours and the same holiday

schedule as the schools themselves. This has

resulted in having public health information available directly on an hourly

basis to the students. It has helped tremendously in communicating information

on public health matters to junior and senior high school students in particular

and, of course, this helps, as well, in the health courses that are offered in

the school, and in particular in talking about public health issues, including

AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment about what has been

said here about the regional health boards. One of the things that I think we

should consider as a Province is making sure that regional health boards are

open to the public. We believe that the public business needs to be done in a

public place, and whether it is the local town council, or city council, or

community council, we believe that regional health boards need to be conducting

their business in a public forum. Thus, people who live in particular regions

will be able to know what is going on, what times the meetings are scheduled.

They will be able to know whether their community representatives are doing the

job for which they have been appointed, and they will be open to the public. All

these meetings should be open to the public and open to the media, and this

would ensure that there is some measure of accountability built into the

process.

If we are going to make the regional health boards work, they

have to be seen as accountable to the public. There is no better way to make

people accountable to the public than to simply say that regional health boards

should be open forums. This will, I am sure, be looked upon by the public as

being a sensible decision, if the government should take it. It would help

ensure a greater sense of ownership over the public health care system in our

Province, and it would assist the boards, as well, to have feedback from their

constituents, the members of the public. It would help to build a sense of

responsibility as we meet the challenging health care needs in the latter part

of this century, leading into the next one. In other words, what I am saying is

that in matters of health, the public have a right to have their voices heard,

and that all meetings of the public health boards should be open forums.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I became aware of a particular

syndrome that is now being researched across the country, called Fetal Alcohol

Syndrome. In particular, I became aware of it for its impact and implications

for education. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a syndrome which has been identified as

affecting children whose mothers consumed alcohol during their pregnancy, and

the research is now indicating that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is a prominent issue

in learning disabilities, and we want to say to the government that research in

Newfoundland and Labrador needs to be given encouragement. I am told by the

Department of Health officials that they are sharing in the research, and that

is commendable, but we want to identify for the general public the nature of

this particular research. There appears to be a direct connection between foetal

alcohol syndrome and learning disabilities in children. Therefore this is an

issue again of what we call a healthy public policy. Have the research done and

then have it adequately communicated. Because if we can do anything that will

help us be more pro-active in preventing learning disabilities then we should be

doing it rather aggressively. The research done in Western Canada in particular

indicates that we might be able, not to cure what has happened, but certainly to

help prevent further difficulties if we become a little more pro-active and if

we let this information be shared with the public.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a couple of comments relative to

the Department of Education and Training. A great deal of discussion of course

has gone on relative to the royal commission implementation. The minister

informed the Committee that about 50 per cent of the recommendations in the

Williams Royal Commission has already been acted upon by the department. The

governance issue unfortunately has taken a great deal of public attention, and

that is to be expected. The difficulty with the governance issue is that there

appears to be a great deal of mistrust on both sides: mistrust by the government

of the churches and their willingness to accept reforms, and certainly a great

deal of mistrust on the part of the churches on the government's real

intentions. Of course, that was not made any better by the Minister of Education

and Training who a year and a half ago said that what he had put forward

required only a few dotting of the `i's and the crossing of the `t's. Therefore

the churches got their backs up very quickly.

One of the great issues that we have to look at in this

that there is a school in this Province that has three students - the smallest

school in this Province is in Monkstown in Placentia Bay. It has three students.

There are two students in Grade VIII and one student in Grade III. When we think

of access to quality education we have to think of schools like Monkstown. I

commend the government for its distance education initiatives; however, these

are largely in high school courses. We want to say to the minister that we have

to bridge the gap between the availability of an education in the larger areas

and the availability of an education to a primary-elementary school child in the

smaller communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last spring there was a great deal of discussion about a

small schools policy. We begged the government in question period to look at

having a small schools policy. The minister at the time said: Let's get through

this collective bargaining process and then we will adopt a small schools

policy. We haven't had a great deal of initiative from the government. As a

matter of fact, the truth is that the ministry just sent out their instructions

to the school boards of the Province, and now we have notice of more and more

cutbacks in teaching staff among schools in rural Newfoundland. Therefore last

year the complaint was: Let's get through the collective bargaining process and

then we will implement a small schools policy. They got through the collective

bargaining process and they cut back on the availability of teachers in rural

Newfoundland.

Certainly I want to say to the minister I haven't seen much

quality education to all students of this Province, particularly those in the

smaller communities in rural Newfoundland.

We want to speak as well about research that has occurred

into learning disabilities and the identification of these disabilities at a

very young age. We find that this Province of course does not have much by way

of early identification of learning disabilities. While the Province of Ontario

is talking about pre-kindergarten and talking about an educational policy that

affects children as young as age three, this Province is not in that particular

mode of education at all. In fact, the Department of Education has very little

research, very little information or very little concern about pre-school. This

government does not really have an educational policy for pre-schoolers at all.

So therefore if you are not aged five the Department of Education does not view

that it has a mandate for your concerns whatsoever. While Ontario recognizes

that the Department of Education assumes responsibility for educational matters

for children as young as age three, in this Province we don't assume that

mandate until a child gets to be age five. So therefore, early identification of

learning disabilities has to wait until a child is in kindergarten, Grade 1,

Grade 2 or Grade 3 and then very little is done about it.

In this Province not only do we need greater attention to

early identification of learning difficulties, we have to do something about it.

We should be allocating more and more resources to the identification of the

learning difficulties and then to their solutions. We spend a great deal of

public money on initiatives of keeping people in school. We spend it all at the

end of the school and we should be looking at a long term approach and saying:

Should we spend some of that money at the front end? While we talk about primary

education, and we mean kindergarten to Grade 3, in many, many places primary

doesn't mean cheap it simply means the beginning. We believe, as educators, that

primary education is where we should have the greatest focus. Unfortunately,

that is often an area that gets neglected and gets overlooked because the voices

of young children are often not heard in the educational dialogue.

We certainly would like to draw attention to the fact that we

are not doing very much about the recommendation of the Royal Commission

relative to the length of the school year. There is talk about it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't say `we.'

MR. HODDER: When I say we, I should refer to the

government and I say we in terms of a Province but the government has to take

that initiative.

We have not done much about lengthening the school day. While

all of these things are contained in the Royal Commission Report there is not a

great deal of work being done on it. Time on Task; time on task is basically a

senior high school, junior high school problem, primarily. Mr. Speaker, the

Royal Commission says that as many as thirty-nine to fifty-one days, I think it

is, may be lost in a school year on activities that are not directly related to

academic achievement. We haven't taken the kinds of initiatives in that area

that were promised by the minister a year or so ago.

One area where we are taking initiatives or the Province is

taking initiatives, is in the area of parent councils. Mr. Speaker, there is a

direct connection between the way in which parents view education, the parents

policies relative to participation in educational processes and school

achievement.

We have seen some initiatives by the Province. There are a

number of experiments going on. They are not unlike initiatives in other

Provinces, but we are still lagging behind, and if we want to improve the levels

of achievement of our students, we have to view education as being more than a

responsibility of the parent and the child and the school. Education is the

responsibility of all society, and we want to say to the government that we have

to give more empowerment to parents. Studies are numerous in this Province, and

numerous across the country, which show a direct connection between the

participation of parents -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - a direct connection between the

participation of parents in the school system, and the level of achievement. We

say to the government, give all of the parent councils of this Province

encouragement, because that is where we can make real progress and a significant

impact on the standard of education in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Before recognizing the hon.

member, I want to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery, on behalf of

all hon. members, fifteen students from the Secretarial Science Program at Keyin

Technical College in Renews. Accompanying these students is their teacher, Ms.

Valerie Lake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to rise today and take

part in the Concurrence

debate regarding the Social Services Committee of the House of Assembly. I had

occasion to attend one meeting, which was Social Services, and I must say that

it was a good time once again to ask the minister some questions, and to take

part in debate and find out information on what was happening in that particular

department. I didn't have a chance to attend and ask questions on some of the

other departments, and some of those departments I would like to touch on here

today. One is the Department of Health.

I can never understand, and it is too bad the minister is not

here, because I intend to approach him to find out exactly how this process

works, and I think of subsidized and non-subsidized homes, personal care homes,

in the Province. We continue to talk about saving money, and cutting back on

expenditure, and looking after our seniors, and giving them the proper care that

they need, but somewhere along the line I think we are missing something, and I

have to refer to a personal care home that the Member for Trinity North probably

knows very well; the home is in his district. I have had occasion to go to the

home and speak with the owners. In fact, I went on a tour of the home there. It

is a new home. You might call it a Cadillac of a senior citizens rest home.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, and it is located in Catalina as

well. The home is located in Catalina, and operated by Ross and Shirley Barney.

It has a capacity for thirty-two seniors, and I think they are operating right

now with seventeen, if I recall. The day that I was there, which was a couple of

months ago, they had thirteen. This big, new, beautiful home, a need in the

area, we find that seniors are unable to go and become residents in this home

because government, in their wisdom, failed to call it a subsidized home. Now,

let's look at the difference between a subsidized home and an non-subsidized

home.

From what I understand, you go into a subsidized home, when

it is built it has to reach certain requirements the government puts forward,

and when the residents go in there, the owner receives $856 per month. Some

times the residents can't afford to pay the $856 and, as a result of that, it is

subsidized as the name states, it is subsidized by government. I thought it was,

in most cases, subsidized by the Department of Social Services but I found out,

no, it is subsidized by the Department of Health.

The resident in turn, gets back $110 a month; the $110 a

month go for their personal needs, if somebody smokes or if they like a special

kind of soap or something; clothes I guess and what have you, the personal needs

of the residents there, so that in addition to the $856, they get $110. Also,

the Department of Health pays their drugs, pays for their special needs like

creams and lotions and other things that they need. I understand also, that the

subsidized homes are compensated for security that is going to be looking after

the homes during the off-hours, during nighttime, and I think the makeup on that

and the structure is, that there are two security workers for each ten people

who are residents at the home. I think there are two security workers for each

ten.

Let us look at a non-subsidized home; let us look at the

Barney's Home down in Catalina, Mr. Speaker, one of the most modern homes, in

fact, I would say it is probably the most modern home in Newfoundland. It is not

subsidized and that's probably the reason why the gentleman and lady are down

here today with the home half filled to capacity. Their rate of charge is $840 a

month and all the personal needs of those seventeen residents who are there are

looked after. Their drugs are looked after by their $840 a month; their special

needs are looked after; security is looked after, all those needs are looked

after by that one outlay of $840 a month.

You look at the subsidized homes and you will find that each

resident in a subsidized home is costing this government $500 a month as

compared to what the Barney Home would charge in Catalina, and, Mr. Speaker, if

we are going to look at saving money and if we are going to look at giving

attention and care to our seniors and if we can give them the same amount of

care and attention, then why designate a subsidized home from a non-subsidized

home? Let's treat everybody alike, let's treat everybody fairly, I say to the

minister and forget about we will subsidize this home but we won't subsidize

this one.

Let us look at treating everybody fairly; let's let private

enterprise go out and build those homes if they see a need for it, if there is a

feasibility study done to show there is a need, if the seniors in the area are

willing to go and occupy those homes and let us save some money while we are

doing it. I don't know what is so bad about that, Mr. Speaker, but up until now,

this particular individual as I said, has invested his lifetime savings, a

beautiful home down there, all the most modern amenities there and sitting there

with the home half-full and seniors in their homes needing care, crying out for

care but because they can't pay the few extra dollars themselves, then the

government of the day is saying: no, we won't help you; yes, we will leave you

in your own home and we will leave the other home, we will leave the Barney

Home, we will leave Shirley's Haven there half-full. Half-full still they can

respond to the need and would give the care and comfort to our seniors which

they deserve and which we should do as christians.

Mr. Speaker, still I suppose with the Department of Health, I

would like to touch on the ten beds at the Golden Heights Manor. I asked some

questions here in the House a few days ago, and I fail to understand, we will

never understand how government would go out and spend $1.4 million to renovate

and refurbish a Level 111 chronic care unit in the Town of Bonavista, to open up

ten ambulatory Level 111 chronic care beds and leave them vacant. Ten beds, ten

rooms gathering dust; spent $1.4 million to change the home around to

accommodate ten extra people because there is a need there but when the will

comes to fill those beds they are saying we can't do it we have to balance our

budget because we have to show a surplus on our current account. Then in any

questions to the minister wondering when those beds are going to be filled, in

his wisdom he gives you an answer like it is up to the new health care board

that has been appointed in the area, if they can find the money to open them

they can open them.

Now, where is the money going to come from if it cannot come

from government? Where is the new health care board going to get the money? Are

they going to go out selling tickets, Mr. Speaker, or take

part in a Bingo? Let

us be realistic here and let us respond to the need that is out there. If there

were no need for those ten beds then why spend the $1.4 million to refurbish the

hospital and create the ten beds in the first place? Then, the minister in his

wisdom, his department, appointed a hospital board, the end all and the answer

all to all our problems on the Bonavista Peninsula and on the Burin Peninsula.

According to legislation the board can consist of eighteen

appointees, on any particular board. The minister made up the board and he

appointed seventeen people, eight from the Burin Peninsula, seven from the

Clarenville area, and two from the Bonavista area.

MR. OLDFORD: What a member.

MR. HODDER: The Member for Trinity North says, what a

member, but the Member for Trinity North should remember that his district also

takes in Catalina, Port Union, Melrose, Port Rexton, and all the old and new

Bonaventures, and the area surrounding the Bonavista hospital and the Bonavista

health care facility, so they need equal representation as well, I say to the

member. He should keep those areas in mind and not forget them.

Here we have again in Bonavista, Mr. Speaker, with those ten

extra beds in excess of 100 beds, taking into consideration the ten acute care

beds and the chronic care beds at the Golden Heights Manor. In excess of 100

beds, and what do we get, in excess of 30,000 people, I might add as well, the

closest senior's home for Level 3 chronic care, I think, is to the northeast,

probably Gander and coming the other way is probably out in, maybe the district

of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. That would probably be

the next closest home, out in South River there.

Mr. Speaker, the minister in his wisdom appoints two people

to represent this whole area, 12 per cent of the board representing the

Bonavista area. Then he comes out and says it is fair representation. Well, I

beg to differ with that because I do not think it is fair representation, and I

pleaded with the minister to appoint another person from that particular area.

Then at least there would be three, and hopefully, one or two of those three

people will also be able to serve on the executive of that health care board

that takes in the Burin, Bonavista, and the Clarenville area.

Up until now the home care program, and I think last year it

cost in the vicinity of $27 million to administer, was looked after by the

Department of Social Services. It was administered by the Department of Social

Services and if there was a need for people requiring home care, where people

would come in and look after seniors in their own homes, or other people that

could not look after themselves, the Department of Social Services would handle

that through their local offices.

The department, in its wisdom, this year decided to transfer

the home care program from the Department of Social Services over to the

Department of Health. I know in my district I had one couple and we were almost

there. All the assessments were done, the applications were completed, and it

was just a matter of signing on the dotted line. This senior couple, I think the

lady was on oxygen and could not work, and the gentleman had one or two open

heart surgeries, were having a real hard time, and they also had a mentally

challenged daughter.

We were almost there in getting them home care. We had people

identified to go in there. The couple had even purchased some new utensils, a

new washer, so that the people when they moved in would have some degree of

satisfaction in looking after them and being able to do their work. I called the

local office, Mr. Speaker, and was told that it was not their responsibility any

more. Yesterday it was, today it is not. Now they have to wait for the

Department of Health to put the full structure in place so those people now

might be looked after.

Knowing that this was going to happen, the first thing I did

was pick up the phone and call the Department of Health and try to relate to

them the problem. Their comments were: We can't assume the full home care

program. We are willing to take on the responsibility of what already has been

put in place, but we can't take on anything new until the new board is

structured. The new board goes in operation in June of this year. The Budget

came down in April. It was changed from March 31 to April 1. The change took

place. Now you have another two months of waiting for those people with those

basic needs out there to be able to avail of a service that was always there for

them.

Because government in its wisdom decided to change it from

one department to another it is now being left with probably another three or

four months by the time that the board gets up and running and decides how it is

going to put the system back in place and the changes it is going to make. You

will probably see those people another three or four or probably even five

months dealing with the same problems that they've tried and they thought they

had answers to in the past. That is shameful. It is no credit to the government

to allow those things to happen.

The other concern I have, last year this same program cost

the Department of Social Services $27 million, and this year, with the program

being transferred from the Department of Social Services to the Department of

Health, there was $20 million transferred in the Budget. I suppose there is

going to be a $7 million shortfall there, and that is a shame. Because here

again it is our seniors, the people who can least afford it, the people who need

help most. It is the seniors who are going to take the hurt because of those

cutbacks.

The Department of Social Services. This year we witnessed

some unpleasant events out at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre out in

Whitbourne. The minister in her wisdom said that there was nothing wrong out

there, everything was alright, everything is copacetic. Everything is wonderful,

no need to raise an alarm. Everything wasn't alright. Even though it was never

admitted by government there were problems there and things needed fixing, there

were a lot of things that were fixed. That is to the credit of the minister,

even though it was never admitted. I went out there myself and I think I had a

six-hour tour of the establishment. The front-line workers there and the staff

pointed out the things that were wrong and the things that were now being fixed,

and the things that were being looked after. They've come a long way in making

some changes. That is a credit to the department, credit to the minister, but

there are still a lot of concerns out there.

One of the concerns that was raised to me is recent, and I

brought it to the minister's attention at the Estimates meeting that we had here

on Social Services, where they've recently hired fourteen new staff there. Those

fourteen staff are supposed to get three weeks of training, three weeks to be

trained in the new role that they've taken on. Where they go to work and - you

know, there are a lot of things to be learnt. I suppose there is a procedure. In

order to make themselves aware of the rules and regulations and the procedures

that must be in force there is a three-week training program. Some of those

people came to work and within six days of training - not the fifteen that they

were supposed to get - they were working on a ward, on a unit. I think that can

lead to all kinds of repercussions when you have people there not fully trained

and not fully cognizant of the job that they are performing.

Another fear was raised even by the casual part-time people.

Because it is a situation where there is a fair list there of casuals who are

called in as need be. When somebody is sick or when somebody books off on annual

leave, or whatever, somebody is called in. They maintain a regular list for

this. It could be a situation that the person who is called in - it could be two

people called in, two people looking after a complete unit. Sometimes it happens

that those two people may be called in, and it may be that they haven't worked

there for the last two months, the last three months, and maybe the ten

residents of that particular unit, it might be the first time they have seen

them. Those people come in and there is no transfer of information. They come in

and go to work at eight o'clock, or whatever time the shift changes, not knowing

who they are looking after, not knowing what the residents are there for, not

knowing the crime they committed, not knowing anything about the ten people they

will be in charge of. To me, that's wrong.

I think people should be briefed much more than that, and I

think those workers should be informed of the people they are dealing with, and

the people they will be looking after, and the people they will be responsible

for, because some of those people are there in excess of twenty years old, and

some more of them are there much, much, much younger than that, and they are not

all there just for petty crimes, I can assure you. Some of them have committed

crimes that are adult crimes, and the people who are looking after them, and

responsible for them, need to know why they are there, and should know what to

expect. So those are some of the things that concern me about that place.

Another issue that I brought to the minister's attention is

that some of the casual workers there who work - and listen to this one; this is

a good one - some of the casual workers there work twelve hour shifts when they

go into those homes, and they go there and work twelve hours at the Newfoundland

and Labrador Youth Centre, go to work 8:00 p.m., get off 8:00 a.m., and then

they go over to the Lakeside Home in Whitbourne and work another twelve hours.

Then, it is not unheard of to go back and work again, until their three or four

days are up. Now, who is providing who with protection?

I say yes to the Member for Fogo that this is happening, and

it is a grave concern of the people there as regular employees, and it would be

a concern of mine if my son or daughter, or I had a relative out there, number

one, and it would also be a concern of mine if I was a co-worker, and working

with somebody who was working all those hours. Where is he or she sleeping?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I guess they work the regular

shift. If it is three days a week - I don't know how the shifts are structured,

but usually when you see a twelve hour shift you see people work three days one

week and four days the next on a twelve hour basis. That is what you usually

see. So somebody is sleeping somewhere, and somebody is getting their rest

somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they work that amount of time in both

of them?

MR. FITZGERALD: They work the full twelve hours in both

of them, I say to the member, working the full twelve hours in both of them, and

being paid by the Department of Social Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Whatever it takes. If he is working three

shifts at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre, he is probably coming off,

and as soon as the shift is over he is going on in the same twenty-four hour

period and working the other twelve hours at the Lakeside Home in Whitbourne,

and some of them - not only at the Lakeside Home - are doing the same thing out

in Topsail, in the home out there.

This is something that was brought to my attention, and I

think it is something very serious. I brought it to the minister's attention. It

is happening. It was brought to my attention when I did the six hour tour there

a few months ago, and in a follow-up to it the night before we had our meeting,

which I think was last Wednesday night, I called some people there and they

said: Yes, it is happening, and yes, it is a concern of ours, but nobody seems

to want to interfere with it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to bring it up, because I think

it is a problem, and I think it is something that should be addressed because,

as I say, let me work twelve hours, and if I am working then I know what I want

to do when the twelve hours is up. I don't think I want to go and work another

twelve hours, and keep going that way until I get another three days off, and

this is what is happening. Those are some of the things that are happening.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was shameful of the Department of

Social Services when they did away with paying hydro bills. Now you may want to

say: No, I pay my hydro bill; you should be expected to pay yours, and you

should be expected to pay yours, and there is some credence to those statements

and concerns as well, but this was a policy brought about by the Department of

Social Services. It was something that continued to happen over the years. I

said to the minister, why can't we bring this thing in gradually?

Number one, say yes we are going to do away with paying hydro

bills if those people are not getting enough money to be able to pay for that

particular bill in the amount of funding they are getting from Social Services.

If they are, well then let's agree that we are going to help them get rid of the

arrears by bringing it in gradually. Let's pay the arrears for them and take it

off their regular social assistance checks over the summer months - budget plan.

There is a budget plan with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I say to the Member

for Fogo but why couldn't we - since it was brought about as a surprise to

people and it was brought about abruptly, why couldn't we have absorbed the cost

and have taken it back from their checks over the summer months when they would

not have had those high electricity bills? Most of them that assume those bills

and were responsible for them, I would suggest probably were using electric heat

so they would have been able to pay those bills over the summer months and after

that let's not pay anymore if that is what government deemed to be necessary.

Let's not pay anymore but that is something, Mr. Speaker, I think that there

should have been a little more thought went into and a little bit more help

provided.

Another heading, Mr. Speaker, under the Social Services was

education. A big issue, Mr. Speaker, out in my district but not for one part of

the district, down in Bonavista. I think Bonavista probably has one of the

better schools in all Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, it is probably a

flagship of a school, where you have the new high school there attached to the

Eastern College. We find that many of the people in Level I, II and III go over

to the Eastern College and take

part in some industrial activities there I

suppose or industrial arts programs and they tie them both in very well.

They have an excellent school there with an excellent staff

but up in the other end of my district, Mr. Speaker, where people travel from

Sweet Bay, Charleston, Southern Bay and Princeton, they travel up to the

elementary school known as L. R. Ash in Lethbridge and at the high school in

Musgravetown, the Musgravetown High School. That school was constructed back in,

I think about 1959. It was the late '50s and it was probably one of the last

schools that was built a wooden structure rather than concrete and steel. Today

the school is showing its wear and tear and the people there, I can assure you,

are not very happy with the type of structure that they have to go to every

morning and the teachers themselves now are speaking out.

There has been a group of concerned parents who have formed

an association to try and lobby government to have a new school built. I don't

know how much headway they are making but I know that they are a very active

group. I certainly support them 100 per cent and I know the Member for Terra

Nova has been supporting them all the way as well and hopefully government in

its wisdom, will see the need for that new school and respond to the need

because I doubt if there are many worst on the island right now. Give those

people in Terra Nova district and from the upper part of Bonavista South an

opportunity to attend a school that most people take for granted here in

Newfoundland and Labrador today. I won't get into all the individual problems

with the school because the minister has been made aware of them and I have

raised the issue here before but I can assure you that the list is long and the

need is great. I would encourage government, if they have any money to put

towards new school construction in this year or within the very near future then

that is one school that should be addressed and one school that should be

replaced.

The L.R. Ash school in Lethbridge, another wooden structured

school, is not much different. I would think that government in its wisdom will

have to very seriously look at either spending massive amounts of money on this

particular school in order to attend to the structural problems there, the roof

problems and other deficiencies that have been pointed out, they will have to

seriously look at their money and see if it makes sense to repair or replace. I

have a funny feeling that replacement might be the answer, Mr. Speaker.

Environment is another heading in the Social Services

Committee's headings, Mr. Speaker. When I think of the environment the first

thing that comes to my mind is the sewer treatment plant in Bonavista. This was

a plant that was constructed about twenty-two years ago. It was supposed to work

very well in that the sewer and the waste water from the town would go into this

big reservoir and from the reservoir it would go out into a pond known as

O'Dea's Pond and a channel was cut leading to the salt water. Under ideal

conditions, the tide would rise, and every time the tide rose it would come in

and would flush out this pond, clean the pond out - everything looked after.

But, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't work that way and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I say to the minister, and I might

add that I fully concur with everybody over on this side what a wonderful

minister he has been and what a great fellow and what compassion he has brought

to the job. He is aware of it. The minister is aware of it, and he has promised

to look after the problem. He lent me a sympathetic ear when I met with him,

just a week ago, I think, Mr. Minister, and made him aware of this problem. But

it is a situation where this treatment plant now has outlived its usefulness and

is to the point where it is not capable of looking after a town that was growing

and vibrant until the fishery closed. And it is, I might add, one of the biggest

towns, the seventh largest town in Newfoundland - Bonavista, the seventh largest

town in Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just to clue up, if I am allowed, Mr.

Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to make the minister aware

of this: I know it's a real problem - it isn't very nice when you go out in the

summertime and see those big flies flying around in the particular area where

this pond is located; the smell, people can't raise their windows in the

summertime because of the smell, kids can't go out and play, pets are not

allowed to stray in the area and I suppose, to make matters worse, now it's at

the point where the sludge forms on the top, the sludge forms on this particular

tank, and when the wind blows, the wind takes the sludge, takes the foam and the

next thing you know, the people living around the area have this - you know what

it is, on their windows and on their cars. In fact, kids have come home crying,

with it on their clothes, Mr. Speaker. It is not a very nice thing to have to

put up with, and I plead with the minister to try to accommodate the request

from the residents in the area and if there is anything he can do to rectify

this problem, then he would be helping a lot people and he would be certainly

attending to a problem for which he is responsible and which has been, I

suppose, a nuisance for the past number of years.

Mr. Minister, I thank you very much for the leave that you

granted me.

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

Extern.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you - I will give leave if you wish?

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

Centre want to speak?

MR. J. BYRNE: I will give you leave, no problem.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few points I would like to raise about

some of the department's estimates, one, having to do with the Department of

Health, first of all. I noticed in the Estimates, on page 234, if anyone wants

to follow along - under Dental Services, last year we had a $5.7 million grant

in there and it has been cut back by half-a-million dollars to $5.2 million.

Now, this is the children's dental health program which

operates throughout the Province and it provides a variety of services to young

children in dental services. As we all know, we have always had a problem with

dental care in Newfoundland, a problem which persists, and to cut half-a-million

dollars off that is a pretty serious thing.

What has to happen now is that the Dental Association, the

dentists, have to get together with the department and try to figure out what

services will be cut, whether they are going to not take out the `eye' teeth

anymore or just fill the molars, or what, or whatever services, because some

services are going to have to be cut back in order to -

Now, what surprises me though - and the other thing I want to

say is, this program has steadily been eroded over the years. And one of the

strong points about the program is that it provides money so that dentists will

stay in rural areas, and without this program, without this money that would

subsidize dental care for rural people basically, dentists would not go into

these places because the take would be too little. So that is a fairly serious

cost, I believe, but I can see the problem. We have to balance the Budget and we

have to cut here and there - that is one of the costs of the Budget.

On the other hand, I notice that exactly the same amount was

put to increase the salaries of physicians to entice them to go into rural

areas. So you took it from the dental program and you added it to the

physicians' salaries. And I am a bit concerned. I want to raise this concern

because it is one that has bothered me for some time. I am concerned that many

professions are now stressing the amount of cash they can get from their

profession and not stressing service. I remember years - you remember Dr.

Grenfell and how he served. I don't think money, the take, was what was in his

mind when he went and did service in Northern Newfoundland. I don't think Dr.

Olds was motivated by the money he was getting. I don't think Dr. Paddon was

motivated by money. I don't think Dr. Cron, in Harbour Grace, was motivated by

money alone. Every place has its traditional type of doctor you can point to who

was there to serve the community, and they also lived reasonably well.

Nowadays, when I see young doctors coming out - not all, but

a substantial number of them are interested only in one thing: How much can I

get? And if I can't get enough here I'm going down to the States. It is not only

doctors, I remember teachers who were dedicated, who were concerned only with

their pupils, and in recent years the dollar has become much important to

teachers. I don't want to condemn anybody, I'm just saying it is the trend.

The same way with clergy; people used to enter monasteries

and they would join, become nuns, and take perpetual vows of poverty, because

that was the thing to do, to serve the people. That whole question of service

seems to me now to be gone. I'm wondering if it is really necessary to keep

increasing the Medicare budget when doctors probably are the best paid

profession, next to lawyers, in the Province. Someone said: `Ask not what your

country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.' I think we have

to stress that thing more than we have. That is enough on the Department of

Health. I just wanted to raise that issue so that it wouldn't be forgotten.

I want to have a few words about the Department of Justice

because I think that is one department that we should be spending more time

examining than we have in the past. I want to raise a question in the

landlord-tenants act. I raised one the other day here about refunds and so on,

but I want to raise a different point now. This concerns the - if you have a

problem with a landlord you can go to the director of landlord-tenant relations

and he and his staff will mediate the problem that the landlord has with the

tenant or the tenant has with the landlord. If you are not satisfied there you

can take this elaborate procedure and make a referral through the Trial Division

of the Supreme Court back to the residential tenancies board.

But, if you happen to be living in a unit that is rented by

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, you do not have the right to go to mediation,

under the act, and you do not have the right to go before the residential

tenancies board. That means that the people who are running Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing have very powerful - they can do almost what they wish to their

tenants, and that is not fair. We are hoping that the Department of Justice - we

have been asking for some time - will amend that part of the act so that tenants

of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing have equal rights to those of other tenants

to appeal bad decisions of their landlord.

Another point I want to raise has to do with the problem of

prisoners. Quite a number of people these days go to jail for one reason or

another. It might be for drunken driving, or whatever the case might be, and

when they pay their debt to society, they serve their time, and sometimes it is

pretty hard on their families, and themselves, but anyway we are not going to

quarrel with that, but when they get out and try to live a straight life it is

very, very difficult, and the reason it is difficult is because the unemployment

situation in this Province is very bad, but for a former prisoner it is almost

impossible. No matter how hard a person tries, no matter how many doors you

knock on, it is even more difficult for people who are released from the

penitentiary, and from other places.

It is a very, very serious question and I know of quite a

number of people who, not a lot, but a fair number of people, who have served

their time and who want to straighten out and live a normal life, a good life,

but they are having this problem. The other question is that the unemployment

situation in this Province is driving a great many people to crime, and that is

a very serious question as well. I wish they did not do it but sometimes a

person gets quite desperate and it is very little that you can do. That is

enough from justice for the time being. I just wanted to raise those two points.

The other department I want to have a few points raised about

is the Department of Social Services. It is my contention, and it has been for

some time, that the levels of social services are far too low. Let me give you

an example. There is a fuel allowance that takes effect in the winter and early

spring. It cuts off in April and starts in November. It is $51.00 a month. Now,

$51.00 a month is not the differential between the cost of heating your house,

certainly in St. John's, than it is in the summertime. That $51.00 will not come

close to meeting the differential.

Many houses that I know of in St. John's were built 100 years

ago and very few have R2000 insulation in them. Some of them have virtually no

insulation, some do not have double windows in winter, and many people spend

$300 and $400 a month to keep their apartment, or whatever they are renting,

part of a house warm, and even then it is not very warm. The $51.00 will not

come close to it. In some parts of the Province it may be possible for the

$51.00 to be spirited along because a person can go in the woods nearby and chop

down a few trees, but if you happen to live in St. John's there is not much to

chop down. You could wander into Bowring Park and cut a few trees, I suppose, if

you are so inclined and if you do not get caught. You can cut down some of those

telephone poles. What can you do? There is very little wood that you can use in

the city to supplement the heating problems so people are stuck. They cannot pay

their bills, or they have to freeze, so that is the choice.

Now, the Department of Social Services in their new Budget

has brought in this rule where they are not going to set up overpayments for

fuel, and that is causing great inconvenience in the district I represent. I

might add, too, that times have changed very much over the past few years. At

one time it wasn't too hard. If you were on social assistance you could cut

wood, you could get a few lobsters, you could do all sorts of things, but

nowadays the regulations are such, there are so many regulations in society now,

that you cannot do anything to improve your lot, or very little. You cannot

catch a codfish, you cannot catch a lobster, you cannot do this, you cannot go

in the woods, you have to have a permit for this and a permit for that.

At one time the fellows brought in a permit to catch a rabbit

and charged the kids for doing that, but that is gone now, thank goodness. At

the same time there are far too many regulations that are preventing a person

from gaining a living, and that makes it very difficult, because a person in a

city particularly, and perhaps elsewhere as well, but perhaps not to the same

extent, it is very, very difficult for someone to supplement their social

assistance with real income of a non-monetary nature.

Social workers come in two kinds. You have social workers who

are very dedicated and concerned, and worry about their clients and keep in

touch with them, but you have others who don't, and let me give you an

illustration of the funniest thing I have ever heard, because if you are on

social assistance you really don't have any money for a telephone. You can get

it if you don't want to eat enough, but there is no real money put aside for a

telephone. So here is a person who is desperate; he wants to get hold of a

social worker. He doesn't have a phone. Lots of people on social assistance

don't have phones - many, many - some do, but many don't, so what do you do? You

go to the nearest pay phone and you stick a quarter in - you barely have this

quarter - and as soon as you dial: I am sorry, this is John Jones. I am not in

my office today. I am out doing something or other, but I am not in my office

today. As soon as they say that, your quarter is gone. Now if he didn't answer

his phone, you wouldn't be able to get hold of him, but at least you would save

your quarter. So you keep phoning and phoning, and the social worker is never

there.

The system that is in place assumes that everyone has a

phone, but everyone doesn't have a phone because the money is not provided on

social service to have a phone, so there is something wrong with this method of

doing it. It is as bad as the federal government, where you push one, push two,

push three, and then you push the whole damn works, so there is a problem with

respect to this business of communicating with your social worker; and, I tell

you, I have trouble communicating with some as well. It is very difficult to get

hold of people - not all people, because most of the people who work for the

Department of Social Services do a reasonably good job, and some are

extraordinarily good.

Now I am not very much impressed with the Social Services

Appeal Board either, to tell you the truth. I sometimes feel that basically what

happens here is that it is just a matter of referring difficult decisions on to

somebody else, and there are far too many referred. What I would like to see in

the Department of Social Services, I believe, I think there has to be a total,

almost a Royal Commission in social services. In the past six years we have had

six Ministers of Social Services. We need, I believe, a Royal Commission, or

some sort of commission, to sort out the whole caboodle, because it is very

complicated.

I am not sure that the rates should be the same right across

the Province, except for Labrador. I am not sure they should be, but I can't

decide what they should be. I don't believe that the amount of money that people

are allowed to earn, this $40 or $45 for a single person, $105, is it, for a

person with a family, per month is sufficient. There should be some way of

handling that, and I believe we have to look at this whole question of the

amount of money that people get.

I am tired of seeing children going to school hungry. I am

tired of seeing them going to school with no clothes. I am tired of visiting

homes which are cold in the winter - cold - where children sometimes have their

mitts on trying to do their homework, and I have been in houses where children

have their mitts on doing their homework, and I am tired of...

You know, we talk about slum landlords in St. John's, but the

biggest slum landlord, in a sense, is the Department of Social Services, because

they do not have any control over what places people live in. They have no

inspectors. If a poor person who hasn't got much clout ends up in a place that

is not very good, the Department of Social Services will pay the rent

automatically. The landlord has a secure amount of rent, and I believe that the

department is abdicating its responsibilities - not for some people, because

some people can handle it, but we have a lot of people on social services who

are sick, who have mental illnesses, who have other personal problems that they

can't manage very well. It is not their fault, it is just the way things are.

I believe that their premises should be inspected regularly

by somebody - and that way we might be able to shake out some of the terrible

practices that occur, where people are buying up these old homes, turning them

into a variety of apartments. Sometimes there are six and seven - you knock on

the door of a house. You will find that you go inside and it is a beautiful

house, it has been there for 100 years, passed on down from one generation to

the next.

You go in the next one and you will see it is all cut up into

bed-sitting rooms. There may be five or six bed-sitting rooms in there. In one

bed-sitting room there may be somebody sleeping on the floor on a mattress, in

another there may be two or three people, and things of that nature. Some have

heat and some not. My attention was brought the other day to a place where it

was very cold. What the person did was he took one of the elements out of the

stove and used it as a heater. Placed it in a proper place for heat so it would

warm the house. Of course, this was totally against the civic regulations and

somebody blew - told on him - and they had a problem.

That is the sort of problem that some people run into in this

city. I don't want to exaggerate it. Not everybody has that problem, but quite a

few have. The problem is heat, the problem for many people is food, and the

problem is the lower levels of social services money.

It bothers me too that - I might as well - you see, the

federal government's budget - I know we are not talking about that, but it has

relevance here. It looks like next year we are going to be cut back even more

when the federal government starts bringing in its changes in its established

program financing. If we are cut back some more in order to balance the federal

budget, I'm wondering if there is a better way of doing it. You see, everyone in

society is paying. We are all paying. We've laid off people, we haven't

increased our social services money, we haven't increased our minimum wage

lately, we haven't done this, we haven't done that. Many things we haven't done,

many things we have done.

There is one type that has not bitten the bullet yet. There

is one group that has not bitten the bullet in the recession, one group.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

DR. KITCHEN: That is the investors, the savings people.

If you can't spend all you make and you put a bit aside, that is one thing. If

you are like the old Scotsman, putting a few cents in a sock every day, and by

and by. That is not what is happening now. Some people are paid more than they

can spend normally and they are putting chunks to one side. They are investing

it in the form of - they get interest on their deposits, or they buy up shares,

and so on. If you do that, if you put it in shares, in Canadian companies, the

federal government, instead of charging the regular income tax, it gives you a

break. You pay even less income tax than the fellow who earns the same amount of

money through the sweat of his brow. That is the way it goes.

We can't default on our investments. That is one way of

making the investors pay. I know we can't do that. What we can do, what the

federal government can do if it wishes, is to put a surtax on investment income.

Rather than give them a break. Now that would be fair. Why do we have to take it

out of the hides of the poor? Why do we have to take it out of the ordinary Joe?

Why don't we take it out of the hands of the people who don't need it? They

don't need it because if they needed it they wouldn't be saving it. Alright?

I believe that the federal government has to come to grips

with this if - who owns Canada? Who really owns this country? Who owns this

Province? It is not the investors. It is not the investors in Switzerland, in

Japan, in Britain, in Canada or down in the United States. It is the people of

Newfoundland who own this Province and nobody else owns it. I was disappointed

today when we can find money to put condominiums on Marble Mountain and my

constituents have nowhere to live!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: That is not right! That is wrong! I don't

care how many Norwegians come in here and ski on Marble Mountain. I don't care

how many come in from Switzerland. I want a place for the people in my district

to live where the rain will not come down on them and they can live like they

should be living. There is enough money in Canada to put that in - the problem

in Canada is not with the economy. The problem in Canada is largely the way we

distribute our money. We are having two classes of people in Canada -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: - those who have more than they need and

those who have too little to exist on and it is getting worse. When I was

growing up here there were a few merchants and the rest of us were more or less

the same. A few people were very poor but most of us had very little but we had

something, all much the same. Now you can easily detect the two classes in St.

John's, those who have more than they need and those who haven't got enough. It

is very easy to see it. You can see it in other parts of Canada as well.

I believe we are going to get to the point where it will be

like New York, where you have the derelicts down there. We cannot allow Canadian

society to be the same as American society. We can't do it! That is not a model

for Canada, that is not a model for Newfoundland! We have to have an even

society like we always had here where Jack is as good as his master, more or

less anyway and there has to be more of that evenness about it. That is why it

bothers me about the Marble Mountains of the world. I know it is going to bring

in some income but need we build condominiums? Need we do that when people need

places to live? I think that is a mistake that we've made here. Now I support

the government very much but I do not support that type of action. Mr. Speaker,

thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to give some

remarks on the Social Services Concurrence Debate. I want to say that in

response to the Chairman of the committees comments about the committee - first

of all I should say that the Chairman - I was going to say that he ran an

excellent committee but when he started making remarks about the members I

wasn't so sure whether he was at the same committee hearings that I was. We did

have good meetings. They were harmonious to the extent that they were well run,

I say to the Member for Trinity North. He did a good job in allowing members of

the Opposition the full rein to ask the questions that they liked.

In reference to his comments about the Minister of Justice.

We did not have the Minister of Justice at the meeting, I say to the Member for

Trinity North and the Chairman of that committee. There was a person there who

took his salary from another department so we were not even able to reduce the

Minister of Justice's salary because the gentleman who was there answering

questions on behalf of the Department of Justice said that he did not take his

salary from those estimates and that those estimates were not even being spent.

So I think to dismiss that comment about the Member for St. John's East and the

Minister of Justice - but to get on to serious matters and there are a couple of

issues that I want to discuss here.

I was very keen to hear the Member for St. John's Centre

speak in this debate and make the comments that he did, I commend him for that.

It seems that the Member for St. John's Centre is - in his political life over

the course of time - taking the opposite approach of many humans in their growth

and development. I remember the former Premier saying at one time that men are

radicals in their twenties and they become conservative as they grow older and

that if you are not radical in your teens and twenties,