June 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 13

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was sidetracked there a little bit, just glancing at the

new piece of legislation that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is

about to introduce on workers' compensation, which brings me to ask my question

today to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations relating to workers'

compensation.

Recently the minister was quoted as speaking in glowing terms

to the press in particular about reductions in the cost of workers'

compensation. The real question is: How are these savings being achieved?

I want to ask the minister this: Has the commission changed

its criteria for evaluating claims from injured workers, or are they under

orders to reduce the number of claims accepted, regardless of who gets hurt in

the process?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In responding to the question, I think the Leader of the

Opposition, the hon. member, understands clearly from his own experiences when

he was in government that the Workers' Compensation Commission is never under

any orders from government.

The relationship clearly is that the government and ourselves

are responsible for the law of the land which says that there will be a

protective system in place for injured workers - that being workers'

compensation - and that the Workers' Compensation Commission, through its board

of directors and its staff, delivers the programs and establishes the policies

that will make sure that the law of the land is adhered to. All we have done is

regulate, change and adjust the law of the land to put in place certain

accommodations because the whole system was in danger of bankruptcy and

collapse, and that as before the board of the commission, upon the advice of its

senior executive staff, determines which policies are in place to make sure that

the law is adhered to.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, as usual the minister did not

answer the question at all. Let me ask him this: Is he aware that MHA offices

have suddenly - or MHA's have suddenly - in the last little while, been flooded

with phone calls from claimants who are being turned down? Is he aware of any of

those calls, and also calls from existing claimants who have had their benefits

cut off by the commission? It all seems to be happening over the last little

while.

Let me give him a quick example if I might. One of the cases,

which I think is typical of many others that we have had to our offices,

involves an injured worker who has had his benefits and his medical therapy cut

off, and he has been told that it will take a year, or even longer perhaps,

before his case would be heard by the appeals tribunal. In the meantime that

individual has been forced on welfare and his whole family is in some kind of a

crisis right now. So, I want to ask the minister this, let him be direct please

if he would with his answer: why is it taking so long for injured workers who

are denied benefits to get their appeals heard number one, and secondly, can he

confirm that the appeals panels really are overloaded now because the commission

is now rejecting the types of claims that were approved in previous years, can

he confirm that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not in

possession of any knowledge that suggests to me that any different practices

whatsoever are being followed at the commission now than would have been at any

time in the last ten years. If anything they are trying to accommodate requests

from claimants and to service claims more quickly than they did in the past, if

at all possible. With the appeals procedure, I point out to the Leader of the

Opposition and to all hon. members, that in fact the process has been speeded up

by reducing one of the two internal appeals that were available to claimants

before so that they now do one internal appeal within the commission. If they

are not satisfied at the end of the day they then lodge their complaint with the

external appeals tribunal and that appeals tribunal, as was indicated in the

annual report submitted here in the House and tabled in the House about ten days

or two weeks ago, they do have an increase in their caseload because of the fact

that people are getting through the internal process more quickly and if not

satisfied are at least beginning the process of external review a little more

quickly than they would have before.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear and

shocked to hear that the minister is not aware of this mess. It is occurring I

can assure him, and there are people in the galleries today representing the

newly formed Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association who I think

would also be appalled at the minister's answer. Since he says he does not know

anything about it or he is not aware of it, would he at least undertake to take

a look into this matter, check into this matter to see if in fact some of the

things that I am telling him here today, is in fact a reality because I want to

assure him that it is. Now, let me ask him this, if I may too, Mr. Speaker,

given that - we say at least and we are told by a lot of people who are calling

our offices, that there is a very long wait for appeals, would the minister not

think that it would be fair and more humane or human for the Workers'

Compensation Commission to at least continue benefits for those people who are

affected until their appeal can be heard. What is happening, as I described

earlier, is that they have been cut off from the benefits. It takes a long time

for their appeal to be heard. They are forced on welfare and surely there is no

compassion in that.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. The system

again, as I would have fully expected that the hon. member opposite would have

understood from some ten years in government - has been and has not changed and

is not expected to change - is that when the Workers' Compensation Commission,

through its own assessment, feels that a worker has been fairly dealt with under

the system and that their entitlement to benefits at Workers' Compensation is

complete and is finished, then, at that point in time, they notify the worker

that he is no longer entitled to benefit under the workers' compensation system.

If the worker is dissatisfied with that ruling, then he has

the right to appeal. It has never been the case where the person has been

continued on while the appeal has been in process and we have not made, as the

government, any representation to the Workers' Compensation Commission because,

as I said in the first question, we don't order the Commission to do anything.

They are arm's length removed from government, very much so; they don't operate

out of the public purse - they do not operate out of tax payers' dollars; they

put forward assessments to the employer community. They pay out the claims on

the basis of the best information that they have, and they have been doing that

since they have been here now, some forty years. Granted, there will always be

complaints but I point out for the hon. member, that, in fact, less than 5 per

cent of all the people who deal with workers' compensation, ever end up

appealing either internally or externally. And we recognize that those people do

undergo a fair degree of frustration and that they are dissatisfied with the

time lines, but it is not one of those things that the government can order a

fix in today. I am sure if it were that easy, that the members opposite would

have ordered that some ten or fifteen years ago.

MR. SIMMS: A final supplementary to the minister.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: His stubbornness today is very familiar to all

of us in this House, because it is the same type of stubbornness he used last

Fall in defending legislation that he brought into the House. We said it was

wrong, and he said, `No, it wasn't, you should know better yourselves, you were

in government.' And here today, we have a bill tabled that exactly proves we

were right and is exactly the point we were trying to make to him six months

ago, so I am only asking him to listen, never mind his standard pat answer in

reply to the question.

The long wait for appeals is a reality. People are being

forced on welfare because their benefits are being cut off. In addition, I want

to ask him about this: Is he aware that claimants now, have to wait longer than

they normally have been waiting for medical treatment? Is he aware that that is

a problem? And let me tell him of an example. A woman who called our office, who

has been on workers' compensation for four years, has been waiting for eight

months for spinal fusion surgery, still does not know when she is going to get

it and that, too, is a typical case. So I want him to tell the House, will he

check into these allegations, these concerns, will he try to bring himself

up-to-date on what is happening down there and will he, for once, put the

interest of these injured workers ahead of his own pat answers in the House of

Assembly?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the record is clear for anyone who would examine it

in an objective fashion, and that is, that this particular administration, this

government, did put the interest of injured workers ahead of everything, by

making sure that we saved the Workers' Compensation system from guaranteed

collapse which was the course it was on under the direction and guidance of the

previous administration. There is no questioning that whatsoever. That is

unquestionable. Without the kind of intervention legislatively that this

government introduced a year ago, there wouldn't be any protection for injured

workers in Newfoundland beginning in 1996. They would be left to the wolves, the

whole lot of them. In fact, the record of that is completely clear.

We understand completely that there will always be a certain

number of people in any system - including Workers' Compensation - who will have

some difficulty with the treatment that they get in terms of how their claim is

dealt with, and that they will go through an appeal process. That takes a bit of

time. Ninety-five per cent of the incidents, as I have indicated, are dealt with

to the satisfaction of the claimant and there is no further intervention needed

by anybody.

With respect to the access to medical treatment, Mr. Speaker,

the exact opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition put forward is the

truth. We have been monitoring and reviewing the things that happened with

workers' compensation, on an ongoing basis, and no one should try to suggest

that we haven't been. We have indicated to everybody that at the end of this

year we will totally assess the impact of our legislative changes to see whether

or not there should be further adjustments in the law with respect to workers'

compensation, which is what this House of Assembly and this government have

control over.

With respect to access to medical treatment, the exact

opposite of what was proposed is true. If anything, access to medical treatment

right now is more readily available for workers' compensation claimants than it

has been in the history of the Commission. In fact, the Commission has put in

place certain agreements with certain of the health care providing institutions

to make sure that claimants in Workers' Compensation are given priority access

to medical treatment. The hon. member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition,

can check with the Commission at any time to find out exactly where those

arrangements are in place.

MR. SIMMS: You should check. You are the one who should

check. Wake up, boy!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

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

direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I know of

numerous cases of people who are being kicked out on the streets from

Compensation. One of the many cases brought to my attention is that of a

forty-four year old man who has been denied compensation, despite the fact that

two specialists - both orthopaedic surgeons - have examined him and confirmed

that he cannot work because of injuries related to his work. He has been told to

take his claim to an appeal and he will have to wait for at least six months to

have his case heard in appeal.

Why can't the Workers' Compensation Commission decide a case

when there is clear, expert, medical opinions on the condition of the individual

and the cause of the injury? Why does he have to wait for months to get an

appeal, in a case like this?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the

question, but I would suggest that all of us in this Legislature are very poorly

and ill-equipped to judge the merits of an individual case at Workers'

Compensation. I put this proposition forward, Mr. Speaker, in response to what

the hon. member just proposed. The reality is that the worker has been given a

decision by Workers' Compensation and that is that their assessment in the case

just put forward, their assessment of the medical evidence, is that there is no

entitlement to benefit. Now, that is the reality of it, so it is not that the

claimant doesn't have a decision. The claimant has a decision that the

particular person disagrees with, and when you disagree with a decision there is

an avenue to go through to appeal that decision, so there is a choice. The

proper recourse is being followed and that is exactly the way the system works,

so it is not a matter of putting forward, `Why can't the Commission make a

decision?' The evidence has been put forward in front of the people who are

given the responsibility to make those assessments and make the decisions. They

have told the particular person that you are not entitled to benefit and the

person disagrees. When there is a disagreement there is another process to go

through which involves an internal appeal first, and if that is not to the

satisfaction of the claimant, the injured worker, then that person has the

access to an external appeal. That is the process, so it is not a matter of not

getting a decision, it is a matter of getting a decision that that individual

disagrees with. I am sure that none of us here can replace our judgement, with

no information, with that of the person charged with doing that job.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not ill-equipped to make a decision. If the reports of two

independent orthopaedic surgeons is not enough information for Workers'

Compensation to make a decision on someone's health, well, who is going to be

ill-equipped in this Province? What do you want, every orthopaedic surgeon in

this Province to give a report? They are here, they are documented, they are in

the hands of the Workers' Compensation and they can't even make a decision, they

are turning it to an internal committee to look at it, an internal appeal. This

man has been working for twenty-five years and has not been injured. In 1990 he

injured his back and was off work for several months and received benefits. He

went back to work in 1992 and re-injured his back, and that is documented by the

medical opinions of two independent orthopaedic surgeons. Now, what happened

between 1990 and 1992? Is the Commission under a directive to cut back on the

number of claimants or they have they been cowed and browbeaten to reduce the

number of claims and cut back on the payout under the Workers' Compensation

Commission?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again I am a little taken aback

because I really did believe and gave the members opposite credit for knowing

more about the system than they are suggesting they do now, because they have

all made representations on behalf of injured workers.

Everyone understands that when there is medical evidence, it

is presented to the commission and the commission then makes a final

determination on the basis of that evidence plus the fact that the other

criteria for claims are also met - that being that there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again the system requires that

there be medical evidence that there is clearly an injury preventing the person

from working, and that injury was clearly related to work on the job. If those

two criteria are met then the claims are accepted at the commission. Any medical

evidence is reviewed by the medical staff at the commission before a final

decision is rendered. If there is a difference of opinion, as there is in this

case, then there is an appeal process, which is a normal process.

There is absolutely, and I repeat again, Mr. Speaker, and I

am surprised that the Opposition would try to suggest it, because of the fact

that we respect the autonomy of the Workers' Compensation Commission. No

government in the Province runs workers' compensation. The Workers' Compensation

Commission were given absolutely no directives from this government other than

to institute policies that would make sure and guarantee that the legislation

enacted before Christmas was carried through.

The board of the commission is putting in place and

formulating policies to make sure the legislative changes that were introduced

and passed in this Legislature last Fall are acted upon. They are under no

instruction or direction from us in the government as to how they should conduct

their business, other than to make sure they do so in a fashion to see that the

law of the land is upheld.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is time they got their direction from somebody, because a

man who has to wait six months, who can hardly straighten up after twenty-five

years of work, has to wait six months to hear it by internal appeal - wait for

an internal appeal, not to count a tribunal - with two independent orthopaedic

surgeons opinions on his condition as work related, and he meets the criteria

you speculated. So there must be something other than that in the system here

that is delaying this process. There must be a quota system in the system. Is

this not the kind of person that workers' compensation was originally initiated

to help - a person who has twenty-five years of work without any claims prior to

1990?

This government is cutting out benefits, and I ask them

again: Is this government intentionally limiting the number of claims here? Are

they trying to deny benefits to people who need it most by bogging down the

system with months of appeals?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, and it does not matter how

many times and how many people stand up and try to say that in a different way.

That is not the case.

The Workers' Compensation Commission is under no instruction

or direction from the government to do anything with its claims management other

than to make sure that they do it as expeditiously as possible and institute

policies to make sure that the law of the land respecting workers' compensation

is adhered to and abided by.

The hon. members opposite know, and anyone who has been

involved with the system knows, that if the basic fundamental criteria are

clear, and if there is no disputing of the facts, if there was an injury that

occurred on the job related to work, and if the medical evidence is such that

that prevents the person from working further, there would be no question as to

entitlement to workers' compensation. So one or both of those criteria are being

questioned, which is why any claimant would be denied access to benefits under

workers' compensation; and asking questions about a particular case in the House

of Assembly, in this Legislature, is not going to make that difference of

opinion disappear.

When there is a difference of opinion there is an appeals

process available to the injured worker, to the claimant, internally first and

externally second, and I assume that is what is happening - that recourse, due

process, is being followed.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I address my

question to the Minister of Social Services.

I ask the minister if he will confirm that transportation

assistance for persons on social assistance has been cut by $1 million, which is

a cut of 21 per cent from what was spent last year?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the department has been forced to

make certain cuts in order to meet the budgetary requirements of the department,

and yes, in that particular vote the amount has been reduced by $1 million. I

cannot comment on whether the member's percentage is right.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can the minister tell the House how the

cut in transportation assistance will be applied? In other words, how will

social assistance recipients be affected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The answer, I should say, to the hon. member's

question is that in this particular area I'm sure hon. members will know that

there's probably been some abuse. The intention of the department is to cut out

any abuse but not to deprive any of our clients, any sick people, from reaching

hospitals or nursing clinics, or whichever places they have to go for care.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been told

by a social service recipient who is an expectant mother that she will be only

allowed one trip to visit her family doctor for pre-natal care. The family

doctor lives outside of her own community. I have had this confirmed by her

private physician, by their family doctor. Why, Mr. Minister, I ask you sir, has

your government cut into the most basic health care for mothers and unborn

children? Do you believe Third World health care standards are good enough for

people on welfare?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. member that the

philosophy, the intention and the approach of the Department of Social Services

is to offer the best care we can to our people at a minimal cost to the

taxpayers of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. At the end of question period on

Thursday I asked the Minister of Forestry about the affects on the forest of

using mechanical harvesters in logging operations. He gave, to say the least, a

flippant response which I can tell him angered many loggers and other people who

were concerned with the hi-tech equipment that may cause long-term harm to the

forest resource. I want to now give him a chance to redeem himself, to show

people that he takes this issue seriously. Is the minister concerned at all that

harvesters may cause permanent damage to the forest? If he is concerned, what is

he doing about it?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned, and this

government would be concerned, if anything did permanent damage to the forest.

We're aware that roughly 30 per cent of the wood requirements of Abitibi-Price

and Kruger is harvested with mechanical harvesters. About 30 per cent per

company. We're not aware - and I might tell the hon. member that his question

could well be directed, I suppose, if he's so concerned about the environment,

then the Department of Environment would have concerns in that area as well.

In the sense that we work and deal with the Department of

Environment on forest management plans in Newfoundland, no, I am not concerned

at this point in time that those harvesters are doing, as he says, irreparable

damage to the forest resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: We have a disaster in the fishery due to, at

least in part, the use of hi-tech trawlers and equipment. It may be possible to

recover the damage in five to ten years as they say now about the fishery, but

as you know, being the minister, that it takes fifty to 100 years in the

Province to grow new forest. If damage is done to the ecology of the forest it

could be destroyed forever, as you've already said to me. Will the government

undertake a full environmental impact study to determine the impact of the use

of the harvesters on the forest?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it's not the intention at this

point in time of the Department of Forestry to request the Department of

Environment to do a full environmental assessment on the harvesting techniques

used by the company. We approved the companies' management plans. Those plans

include the use of mechanical harvesters. As I pointed out, they cut about

roughly 30 per cent of the requirements of pulpwood for the paper companies.

I would point something else out to the hon. member, Mr.

Speaker. We're managing the forests in Newfoundland on what we refer to as a

sustainable basis. If the annual allowable cut, as directed by the Department of

Forestry, is maintained, the forests in Newfoundland will never suffer the same

fate as the fisheries. What I am telling the hon. member is that if we stick to

the annual allowable cut that has been determined by the professional foresters,

by my officials, the Department of Forestry and Agriculture, we will never get

in a position where there will be no trees in Newfoundland the way there is no

fish, as a result of the kind of management that the hon. members' cohorts

allowed to come out of Ottawa.

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

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

for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I hope you are right on that. The minister

said the government was managing the forestry on a sustainable basis. As we

found out in the fishery, it doesn't help much to have a management plan unless

you also have a solid scientific knowledge about the resource and the impact on

it, of harvesting techniques. If there are no environmental studies of the

harvesting methods being used, how does the minister know what damage is being

done to the young trees or the ability of the forest to regenerate new growth?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, when I say the forest is being

managed on a sustainable basis, I mean that the Department of Forestry and

Agriculture officials know exactly, or very close to exactly, the wood

requirements to maintain the basic industry - the three paper mills and our

saw-milling industry. We know the wood requirements year after year after year.

We know how much wood we can allow to be cut to sustain, to maintain those

industries at least at their present rate of production. We know what age class

to cut and we know how long, for argument sake - if we follow that forest

management plan it is being managed on a sustainable basis. Now, Mr. Speaker,

the difference - I will tell the hon. member the difference in the management of

the forestry in Newfoundland and the management of the fisheries in Ottawa. In

Newfoundland, we know what we are doing. In Ottawa, the Department of Forestry

is managing the forests based on common sense - they know what they are doing,

Mr. Speaker. It is very obvious that the members' cohorts in Ottawa did not know

what they were doing, but they managed anyway and they wiped out the resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. As a result of accident prevention efforts in the workplaces of the

Province of Newfoundland, the number of workplace accidents were reduced by 9

per cent last year. This was one of a number of causes of the financial problems

of Workers' Compensation identified by the recent review committee. Will the

minister take action to speed up the adjudication process, to speed up access to

medical services and rehabilitation services and make further efforts in the

area of Occupational Health and Safety as measures to reduce the problems of the

financing of Workers' Compensation and reinstate the level of benefits to

injured workers which he reduced last year unnecessarily?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is only one problem with the question, which was the

conclusion that the hon. member drew at the end, that we introduced changes

unnecessarily. I think everybody else in the Province would understand clearly

that the changes we introduced were completely and absolutely necessary, and

right now, we are seeing early indications that we may be headed in the right

direction, which is what I have been saying publicly.

With respect to the components of the question, when we

announced the changes in July of last year to take effect on January 1, we

indicated that there would be a four-pronged approach. The key to the whole

thing would be increased emphasis on Occupational Health and Safety so that the

number of lost-time accidents and injuries would, hopefully, decrease. The

report indicates that that is happening and that is good news. No matter how

anybody looks at it, that is good news. We are headed in the right direction

even with the 20,000 people or so taken out of active participation in the

fishery, despite that being factored out, there is a real 9 per cent decrease in

the number of lost-time accidents and injuries, which is positive. It is a step

in the right direction. But, in the changes that were made, Mr. Speaker, it was

clear that that was only one component of it. The organizational rearrangement

was a second part that was necessary, and right now, that is probably the part

on which have not gone as far as we would like to go. The Commission advises

that, in fact, the organizational rearrangements, so that claims can be

processed more quickly and more expeditiously, are in process, and that they are

trying to make sure that a person who accesses the system, Mr. Speaker, is taken

by a particular adjudicator and that relationship maintains right through their

whole duration of time on claim rather than being bounced from one person to

another. Those organizational changes are being made but are not complete yet.

The other part of it, in terms of access to medical treatment

and duration of claim is still under review. As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, in

answer to an earlier question, it is hoped, there are agreements in place with

providers of medical care to make sure that, in many instances, Workers'

Compensation claims are given priority access to diagnosis and treatment where

possible without jeopardizing access to the medical treatment for the community

generally. The benefits, Mr. Speaker, were deemed to be necessarily reduced so

that we could look at the cash flow situation of the Commission immediately. We

committed to do a review, Mr. Speaker, at the end of 1993, of the outcomes of

all those approaches, to see whether or not further adjustments were needed in

one direction or the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member.

MR. GILBERT: At this time, I would like to present the

report of the Social Services Committee. The Committee have considered the

matters to them referred and have passed, without amendment, the estimates of

expenditures of the Departments of Social Services, Education, Health,

Environment and Lands, and Justice.

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I would like to table the report on the

Resource Committee. The Committee have considered the matters to them referred

and have passed, without amendment, the estimates of the expenditures of the

Departments of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, Mines and Energy, Tourism

and Culture, and Industry, Trade and Technology.

On motion, Report of Social Services Committee and Report of

Resource Committee, carried.

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

Consider Certain Resolutions Relating To The Raising Of Loans By The Province."

(Bill No. 15)

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan

and Guarantee Act, 1957.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority

Guarantee Act, 1957.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would ordinarily have given

notice of this motion yesterday except that I spoke with the Leader of the

Opposition and with the Leader of the NDP and proposed that we present this as a

motion on behalf of all three parties in the House. I am glad to report to Your

Honour that the motion I am making now is being made, in effect, with the

support of all three parties in the House.

This is Oceans Day and it has been designated. It is the

First Anniversary of the Oceans Day that occurred last year, and it is a day

that is very important to the people of this Province because the United Nations

is still dealing with a major matter. The resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS the United Nations Conference on high seas fisheries

to be held in New York from July 12-30 is designed to build upon the Law of the

Sea and to provide for effective conservation of high seas fisheries resources;

and

WHEREAS June 8 is the First Anniversary of Oceans Day,

declaring the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development the Earth

Summit, a conference which highlighted the serious problems facing the oceans of

the world and the action necessary to protect them for future generations;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly declare

June 8, 1993 to be Oceans Day, a day to raise public awareness and promote

co-operative action for the health of the world's oceans; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Canada should take a leadership

role at the UN conference, along with New Zealand, Chile, Iceland, and

Argentina, and other like-minded nations, to ensure a treaty-based solution to

the problem of high seas overfishing, and that any new treaty would include

minimum standards for the conduct of high seas fisheries, commitments to comply

with the fisheries management decisions of competent international organizations

like the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, a binding dispute resolution

mechanism, and recognition of the superior rights of coastal states.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this resolution has the full support of all

parties in this House, so I need say very little about it, except to add a

comment or two about the significance at this particular time.

Newfoundland is in effect, sort of caught in a pincer

movement. We have the pressures that come from the federal government and other

provinces on fisheries, and we have the pressures that are coming from the

European community and other nations out there fishing on the Nose and Tail of

the Bank. I think the minister said the other day there were ninety-seven

vessels out there fishing, at the same time that there are 25,000 people in this

Province whose incomes have either been totally eliminated or severely reduced

as a result of the fishery decisions made by the federal government.

Two weeks ago there was not a single FPI plant working in

this Province, not a single FPI vessel out there fishing and there were

ninety-seven vessels from foreign nations out fishing on the Nose and Tail of

the Banks. We are still under pressure, there is still fishing going on and fish

resources go to Nova Scotia, caught off the coast of Newfoundland, go to Nova

Scotia to be processed and there are 400 communities in this Province whose

future is in jeopardy because of what is happening to the fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland has to take some more effective

action to strengthen the spine and the will of the federal government to take

some effective action. I heard the Opposition House Leader the other day, stand

and ask that the Navy be called out to deal with the foreign overfishing. Well,

maybe in the end that might have to be, but first the federal government should

steel its political will to deal with it on an effective basis instead of

cavorting with the members of the European community as it is, trying to please

them and diminishing the pressure on the European community and other nations,

to deal effectively with this and find a treaty- based solution.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they are so conscious of

not upsetting the European communities and others, that today, I should have

been in Halifax speaking at the Oceans' Day Conference. I had agreed to go. I

was originally invited by one of the directors to speak and I intended to go and

address this issue; arrangements had been made but the federal Department of

External Affairs did not want the Premier of Newfoundland speaking at that

conference to deal with it because they would be embarrassed by the strong

position we would take on behalf of the people of this Province, so they caused

that organization to withdraw the invitation to me to speak.

Now that is the kind of lack of commitment of the federal

government. What we need, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to see the endorsement of

all members of the House for this particular proposal, to ask the federal

government to ensure that it puts every possible effort behind a treaty-based

solution to this Province, and as long as the federal government is going to

play politics with it, the way they have been doing so in the past, then they

are risking the entire future of the fishery of this Province.

I want to thank hon. members for their support for the

resolution to ask the federal government to ensure that they support a treaty-

based solution, instead of the wishy-washy approach they are taking to it and

have been taking to it. Mr. Speaker, by agreement with the parties, this is not

intended to be a lengthy speech, but I do thank hon. members for their support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier originally approached me to ask

if we would support this resolution, it was done without hesitation. Frankly,

because the resolution simply asks that this House declare June 8 to be Oceans'

Day. Now I had occasion, as did the Premier, to be at the Rio summit a year or

so ago when this was first declared during that particular conference, Oceans'

Day, and this is the first anniversary.

Now I have to say with some concern, that I was not aware of

the item to which the Premier alluded a moment ago about this conference in

Halifax, and I sure hope, I sure hope - I sure hope that this is not being used

as some kind of a political ploy by the Premier to get some vindictiveness out

against the federal government. I sure hope that is not the case and I take his

word, he knew nothing about it until today.

PREMIER WELLS: I discovered what happened this

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is totally another subject.

I want to deal with the real issue as strongly as I can on behalf of our party,

and it has been emphasized time and time again by members on this side of the

House, it is absolutely vital that this particular issue be treated with

urgency. We all agree with that. There are no differences of opinion on that

particular point.

For years we have ignored the views and advice of fishermen

in this Province about the impact of foreign overfishing on the Northern cod

stocks. For years we have ignored that advice, and while we all know that alone

is not the only reason for the depletion of our stocks, it certainly has been a

major contributor - and sadly we are now paying a terrible price in this

Province for the uncontrolled foreign fishery for Northern cod.

Now according to the Minister of Fisheries' statement a

couple of days ago, there are nearly a hundred draggers and factory ships still

on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Some of them, without question, are

fishing Northern cod while our own boats here in Newfoundland and Labrador are

tied up and fishermen and plant workers are idle. All of them are dragging the

ocean floor for other species of groundfish, and that should cause us some

concern, and there are many signs that the intensity of their fishing efforts

nowadays is having a major impact on the survival of these other species. For

example, you heard my friend from Grand Bank allude to the fact that many plants

in this Province - or plants in this Province that have processed flounder, for

example - have been closed because that species is virtually disappearing.

Fortune, I think, is one area in particular that is suffering. So if we do not

take action now, urgently, soon, to control foreign overfishing, then we stand

in great danger of losing the fishery as an industry in this Province -

something that has sustained us economically for over 500 years.

My second point deals with the point in the resolution that

calls for a treaty-based solution to the problems of overfishing on the high

seas. With regard to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, it is my own view,

and I guess the view shared by members on this side of the House, that any such

international agreement that might be reached must accept Canadian standards for

stock conservation and fisheries management. I think that goes without saying -

without question.

My final point is simply this: If foreign nations who exploit

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks are not prepared to accept Canadian

standards for conservation and management, then Canada should move, without

further delay, to extend its jurisdiction, as often has been called for in this

House. Whether it be done by other methods or by the method proposed by my

friend and colleague from Grand Bank, I do not know. It is difficult to say. We

do not want to advocate necessarily that kind of movement, but I must say, the

other day when I heard my friend from Grand Bank say - at least suggest - it

might be time to send out the boats, then there are a lot of us here in this

House, and indeed certainly a lot of people in this Province, who would have

some affinity for that kind of statement.

So, Mr. Speaker, we support the resolution without hesitation

on those grounds.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in support of the motion and the

resolution of the Premier, on which I was also consulted, first of all to

declare Oceans' Day as an important day, certainly to this Province but

obviously to all of the world.

What we are dealing with here in the second part of the

resolution is really an attempt to put some pressure on Canada to, perhaps for

the first time, act in the real interest of Newfoundland and Newfoundland's

interests in international affairs. We have suffered from a lack of directed

attention over the years. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if Canada had insisted in 1972

on the Continental Shelf definition of economic zone instead of 200 miles, we

would not be in this position with respect to the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks should

not be considered high seas at all.

I support this resolution because it is at least an attempt

to agree with other countries on a treaty basis that what is now regarded as

high seas fishing be regulated. We've suffered from, and the world has suffered

from, an inadequate regulation of common property resources. It's resulted in

ecological and economic disasters in and around this Province, Mr. Speaker, and

it has to stop.

If this doesn't succeed in New York this summer then we

should withdraw from an attempt to get other countries to agree to this and take

action to ensure that the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks at least, and perhaps

the Flemish Cap, ought to be included as part of Canada's economic zone, and

start enforcing our regulations in that area for the protection of that resource

and for the protection of our economy.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a motion before the House to declare

today Oceans Day.

All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

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

Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, by agreement among all groups

in the House, we're going to ask that we deal with the Social Services report

today. May I make just one comment and one motion?

The comment is that I assume we'll have the same

understanding as hitherto of ten minutes, I believe, a speaker. The motion

reflects the understanding yesterday that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

The understanding will be that we will adjourn at the earlier of 5:00 p.m., or

when the Concurrence debate ends.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is to engage in

Concurrence debate according to Standing Order 121.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, before I ask you to deal with

that - have we dealt with the motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Could we deal with motions 2 through 4,

which are first readings of three bits of legislation?

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Schools Act," carried. (Bill No. 9).

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce the

following bills: "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," and "An Act To Amend

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

1991, The Teachers' Pensions Act, The Uniformed Services Pensions Act And The

Memorial University Pensions Act," carried. (Bills Nos. 12 and 10).

On motion, Bills Nos. 9, 12 and 10 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: The Concurrence debate if you would please,

Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Concurrence debate.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's indeed a

pleasure for me to start the debate on the Social Services Committee and to say

that I was honoured to serve as the Chairman of that Committee. I would now like

to recognize the members who served on that Committee with me.

The hon. Member for Humber East, the hon. the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, who was appointed but didn't serve. I understand that it

wasn't his fault, but he was appointed as a stand-in, and then when the

gentleman from Placentia was confirmed he was appointed as the member for that

Committee. Some people might think that was an improvement. I don't know, but

depending on if you know him or not. The other members were the hon. Members for

Fortune - Hermitage, Port au Port, St. John's East, and Terra Nova.

You can see from the make up of that Committee that it was

made up of some veterans, some sophomores and some rookies. I think that

everyone contributed equally in making this a very successful committee. I

understand that previous Social Services committees in recent history - there

was some degree of acrimony among participants and it not operate as smoothly as

this one did. I do not know if taking the fact that I was the Chairman had

anything to do with it, but we did move through the estimates of the various

departments very smoothly.

I am sure that as I chaired the meetings I realized that the

estimates were well and duly debated, and I am sure that the members asked the

questions and the ministers provided the answers. I see some differences between

the questions in the night and the questions the next day. People who agreed

with things in the night have now asked questions the next day but that, I

suppose, is part of going through this. For the members of the opposition it

gives them an opportunity to get the details of the various departments

examined, and I commend them. They did do an excellent job, as did the members

on my side who helped to make this a very smooth operation.

I would like to thank the committee that put those estimates

through the House. The estimates again, we just presented the report of the

various departments. The estimates now have been through and are ready to be

debated here in the House for Social Services, Education, Health, Environment

and Lands, and Justice.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think that the other members of the House

will have a chance this afternoon to rise and debate the estimates of any of

those departments, and at this time I move the concurrence of this report, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I enjoyed, once again, this year serving as Vice-Chair of the

social services estimates committee. The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir did a

fine job of chairing the committee, as did his predecessors, the Member for St.

John's South, the Member for Carbonear, the Member for Harbour Grace, and the

Member for LaPoile.

This year the Social Services Estimates Committee functioned

quite well. We had five full meetings, considering the estimates of five of the

big spending departments of government. The departments whose estimates we

examined were, in the order we examined them, Environment and Lands, Education,

Health, Justice, and lastly, last night, Social Services.

I am not sure why Environment and Lands was assigned to the

social services estimates committee. More logically it would be grouped with the

Departments of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, mining, Tourism and Culture.

I would think Employment and Labour Relations and Municipal and Provincial

Affairs would more properly belong with the Social Services departments.

At any rate, the committee was assigned the Department of

Environment and Lands as well as the four social departments. Together those

departments are projected to spend over 62 per cent of the Budget this year.

Health and Education are the biggest spending departments of all, and Social

Services, which is projected to spend about 9 per cent of the provincial Budget,

actually spends twice that amount when you consider the federal 50 per cent

cost-sharing for most social services programs.

Mr. Speaker, all members of the committee made a good

contribution. My colleague, the Member for Placentia, was the other official

opposition representative on the committee. As the Chair pointed out, because

the Member for Placentia was not sworn in when the committee was set up, the

Member for Burin - Placentia West was nominally appointed, and the formal

substitution never was made, but on an ad hoc meeting by meeting basis, the

Member for Placentia was given voting status in place of the Member for Burin -

Placentia West. The Member for St. John's East and the Members for Port au Port,

Terra Nova and Fortune - Hermitage also served on the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed because the news media,

by-and-large, ignored the proceedings of the Social Services Estimates

Committee, the same as they seem to be ignoring these remarks of mine in the

full House this afternoon.

The Social Services Estimates Committee scrutinized, in some

detail, not only the particulars of proposed spending of government departments,

but we discussed, in philosophical terms, the ministers' and the

administration's aims and objectives. We certainly asked about their goals,

their program for the next year. The replies often were disappointing, but we

did have wide-ranging discussion about each of the five departments we examined.

Much of the discussion, I believe, was newsworthy, and I feel

it is a shame that the news organizations in the Province didn't assign

reporters to cover better the proceedings of the Committee. Actually, many

people who have participated in the Estimates Committee process, have observed

that those proceedings are much more informative and much more constructive than

debate in the full House of Assembly. By-and-large, the Committees concentrate

on serious issues and pack quite a bit of discussion into each three to

three-and-a-half hour sitting.

Mr. Speaker, a dominant impression I formed during the

Committee's deliberations, is that, this Budget is a shoddy piece of work. We

know that the numbers that appear in the document, in many instances, are not

figures the government is committed to, because they are going to reduce all the

salary votes by a total of $70 million, so that will alter, in a major way, the

spending plans of the social departments of government, since most of the

spending goes for salaries and benefits of public servants.

When Committee members ask ministers about particular heads

and subheads, frequently, the ministers cavalierly talked about the possibility

of those figures changing. Last night, at the Social Services session, for

example, when I asked the minister how he can expect to operate for the next

year, spending less on social assistance than last year, remembering that last

year the government's estimate was $20 million short of what was ultimately

spent, he did admit that he and his staff are projecting an increase in the

caseload. Now, a projected increase in the caseload is at odds with the

estimated lower spending on assistance. He did give an explanation but it simply

didn't add up.

I asked the minister how he can justify planning to spend

significantly less on community development projects for social assistance

recipients than was funded last year. The Budget estimates spending of only $9.7

million this year compared to $14.6 last year. He said: As the year goes along,

if we find that the economy continues to be in bad shape, perhaps we will have

to supplement the amount budgeted.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the last few years, each Fall,

panic-fashion, the government has mounted an Emergency Employment Response

program, indicating some surprise, come September, that we have a high

unemployment rate, and a great number of people are facing the cold weather with

bleak prospects and no reliable source of income. Mr. Speaker, by waiting until

late in the year, as the cold weather is setting in, by springing an emergency

employment program the government is not allowing its own staff to plan. The

government can reasonably project a need for at least as much spending this year

as last year on community development projects. Why not make the decision now,

inform staff, community organizations, and other potential employers, encourage

them to plan ahead, enable them to start before the cold weather sets in, and

maximize the return on the investment? After all, social assistance recipients

who are able to work, who have employment skills and are used to working, should

be doing useful work instead of being expected to passively receive welfare

cheques. We all know of many unmet needs in our communities and, with some

advance planning, useful projects can be mounted, well supervised and people can

be harnessed to make a meaningful contribution, but government has failed to

adopt that approach.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MS. VERGE: Too bad, I will have to continue later.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had the opportunity last night to sit in on the Social

Services Committee meeting, filling in for the hon. the Member for Placentia,

and I must admit, it certainly was a learning experience for me. I was a little

disappointed in the answers that were given by the minister and his staff, but

there seemed to be a lot of compassion on the minister's side, and if that

reflects back onto the government members, then I am sure we can see some

positive things happening, even though there are a lot of Budget cutbacks in the

social services area.

I was a little disappointed in the government members who

were part of that Committee, in that there wasn't a question brought forward. It

was a little different from the Government Services Committee, of which I was

Vice-Chair, last week, whereat the government members, the Member for Harbour

Grace, the Member for St. John's North, and the Member for Pleasantville freely

took

part in the discussion. So it bothered me, in that I thought maybe the

government members had no problems or didn't want any questions asked regarding

social services out in their districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are responsible.

MR. FITZGERALD: I know there is a lot of need out there

and there are a lot of questions to be asked. Somebody told me afterwards that

the minister was taking the group out for supper, so maybe they didn't want to

stay too long. Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but I know that the

Member for St. John's East, the Member for Humber East and myself were not

invited.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget, as it was brought forward, left a

lot of guesswork as far as the questions that were put forward and the answers

that were received. There seemed to be a lot of guesswork. There was one memo

put forward, written by Terrence Haire, the Director of Social Assistance, that

stated that home support should be cut back, or ask for a reduction of 30 per

cent. The 30 per cent reduction was not reflected in the figures that were put

forward in the government estimates, so that was certainly confusing. The sad

part about that, Mr. Speaker, is that a lot of those cutbacks and a lot of the

services that have been discontinued, I can assure you, have already taken

place. If it is not a 30 per cent reduction, then I think the people out there

in the field should know exactly what reduction the minister and his staff are

looking for.

It also goes on to say that no new home support will be given

except in cases of extreme emergency. One person in my district called the local

district office and asked what an extreme case of emergency might be. He was

told that if you can turn on a light switch or if you can turn off or on a water

tap, then it is not considered an emergency. That, to me, doesn't seem to be a

very compassionate statement. I think we have to look after our sick and

disabled in a much better fashion than that.

The other situation that concerns me is family commitment,

Mr. Speaker. It is not uncommon for people who are looking for home care help to

be told that if they have families living in their communities or surrounding

area that the family is expected to come and provide care to them. That is all

very well, and probably should be expected, but I can assure you that it is not

always there for them.

One case that I refer to - and I would like for the House to

hear this. I would like for the government members on the other side to hear

this. This relates to a personal experience, too, by a constituent of mine in

Bonavista South. This one particular gentleman is home lying in bed, paralysed

from the waist down. I guess he weighs about - the hon. minister said about the

same weight as himself - about 220 pounds. When you go into the house and you

look and you see this gentleman in bed, he is lying there with a piece of rope

hanging down from the ceiling. I can assure you, it is not a cabin that he is

living in and the piece of rope doesn't fit in with the decor of the House. The

piece of rope is there because he has to help himself out of bed with his hands,

and his wife, being about a ninety-pound person, has to struggle to get him from

the bed to the wheelchair to get him into a bathroom.

The gentleman I refer to is seventy-nine years old. His wife

is sixty-three. Those people are unable to get care to look after and help that

lady or help that gentleman for any hour in each day. The lady has informed me

that she hasn't been to church for about three months. In order for her to get

out and buy her groceries she has to work it at a time when she takes her

husband in to the hospital in Bonavista. While he is receiving his needles

there, she gets a chance to go out and buy her groceries. I think that is

criminal, Mr. Speaker, that we would allow people to live like that. She is not

looking for any special attention. She is not looking for people to come in and

do her house cleaning or her ironing or washing for her. All she is asking is

for some help.

I would like for the minister, now that it is put forward

again, to probably look into that special case. Being the very compassionate

person that he is, I am sure that he will see fit to provide some help to this

lady.

Another subject that was brought forward - and I don't think

it was given the fair hearing that it should have been - was dentures and eye

care. In fact the government members, I think, sniggered at the idea when it was

brought forward, and asked: Why should we provide dentures to people so that

they look well? It is not the point of looking well, Mr. Speaker, it is

something that is needed by people, not only for their appearance, but to be

healthy as well. Eyeglasses: a very important thing if people are to be able to

- if they go to a doctor, if they have to read their prescriptions or read the

instructions that are on the prescriptions. Eye care is very important and I

think every case should be judged individually rather than one blanket policy

that says none of this is included.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he would show some

compassion. We realize we are in bad times, hard economic times. But I hope he

doesn't try to balance the Budget on the backs of the poor and the

not-so-well-off Newfoundlanders in rural Newfoundland. Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to rise to discuss the Estimates and the report of the

Estimates Committee. I, too, have to say that the Committee was very well run by

the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. I must say, plenty of opportunity was

given to the Opposition members and to all members, really, but certainly from

an Opposition point of view, to deal with the estimates fairly. I have to say

that I don't exactly share the opinion of the member who just spoke, about the

alleged lack of participation of the government members. Last night, at the

Social Services Estimates Committee, I took their not asking questions as really

giving the Opposition members an opportunity to fully explore all of their

issues without having to have a second session. So, I didn't place that same

interpretation on it, although I suppose the members didn't quite say why they

were not participating. But that is how I interpreted it. I would not think that

they would have ulterior motives in doing that, I suspect that is the answer. I

suspect also that the new members to the Committee may well have benefitted from

the efforts of the existing members on the Committee, the members who have been

here before, to explore the kinds of issues, to see what kinds of issues were

being brought up, to know what members who have been around for a little while

thought of as important issues.

Hopefully, they did find out some of the things that were of

concern to Opposition members and have been brought up to all hon. members on a

fairly consistent basis, having to do, in particular, with social services - one

of the areas, along with Workers' Compensation, that individual MHAs get

consistent and ongoing calls about. And I think it is some evidence, Mr.

Speaker, that these departments or these issues are not really being handled in

a way that is satisfactory to the members of the public or to the clients of

those services. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it is my view that they are

not being handled satisfactorily to the public interest. So we do need ways of

improving that, and I think one of the ways of pointing out some of those

problems is through the Estimates Committee.

I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I was impressed by the

concern of the minister about the problems that were raised. It is a new

department to him, but it is my view that the minister is prepared to take on

the task before him in trying to resolve some of the problems that exist. I know

him to be personally compassionate for the problems, not only of his own

constituents, but of the people of this Province. I hope that he will continue

to take up that task and resolve some of the institutional or fundamental, the

systematic problems or systemic problems within the Department of Social

Services for the benefits of the clientele. I have to say that the minister,

when he started last night, said that he had a number of officials with him who

were there to deal with the facts and he would deal with everything else. I

thought that was a particularly genuine response from the minister as to what

was going on.

I do have to say, though, that there are a number of serious

problems in the Department of Social Services, both in the policies that the

department is carrying out and in the level of support being given to

individuals. Not all of the problems are financial ones. There are, in some

cases, an attitudinal problem that I think hon. members will realize, or should

realize, sometimes results in the difficulties that the individual clients of

the department are faced with. One of those comes out of the same issue that the

Member for Bonavista North spoke of a few moments ago, that having to do with

the provision of home care by the Department of Social Services. What we have

seen has already been criticized both publicly and in the House, is a reduction

in the provision for home support services to clients of social services. When

dealing here, we have to underline with individuals who require home support

services because of their disabilities. In the case of those who are

developmentally delayed, this program in the Budget for developmentally delayed,

for seniors and for physically disabled persons, provides homemaker services,

attendant care and respite care. The budgeted amount for this year of $13.1

million is a decrease from last year's expenditure of $16.6 million by 20 per

cent. Twenty per cent of the amount that was required to meet the needs last

year is being chopped from the budget, and that is going to mean quite clearly a

reduction of that amount of services, attendant care service, respite care

services and homemaker care services for these individuals who are unable to

look after themselves and need this type of service to maintain a life, be able

to live at home and not be institutionalized at obviously a far greater expense

to the public treasury, but also in an institutional setting which is obviously

not as desirable as living in one's own home or in that type of situation with

one's family.

What has happened though, given this 20 per cent budgetary

reduction requested in the estimates, the Director of Social Assistance has sent

out a memo to all and sundry around the Province. It said: We want you to reduce

by 30 per cent in order to meet the budgetary requirements.

So here we have an individual, under the direction of the

minister, when confronted with a budgetary reduction of 20 per cent, sends out a

directive and tells them to slash 30 per cent. Why is that, Mr. Speaker, and why

is that allowed to go on? That is one of the kinds of issues that are going on

in the Department of Social Services where some people somewhere along the way

think they have the right or the duty to give out as little benefits as

possible.

In fact, in that directive sent out by the Director of Social

Services, there is a direction for the supervisors and for the field staff of

the Department of Social Services to look at each individual case and find out

the absolute minimum number of hours of attendant care or respite care that can

be provided to physically disabled, senior citizens, and developmentally delayed

persons so as to meet the needs for their safety - their safety - not their

comfort, not their care, not their dignity, not what they deserve to have to

enjoy a minimum standard of hygiene, but safety - their personal safety. That

seems to be the bottom level that the department is trying, or at least this

official of the department, is trying to push clients of social services, the

physically disabled, senior citizens, and developmentally delayed persons, to

bring them down to that level of care in order to slash the budgetary

allocations, not by even the 20 per cent that the budget provides for, but by 30

per cent.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt there may need to be a review of

services from time to time on an ongoing basis to monitor the effectiveness of

programs, and the minister so pointed out last night, but it seems that we have

other attitudes, other efforts at work within the department, and no doubt that

attitude is pushed on down to the supervisors and to the other levels and to the

front line levels of social services, and a mean spirited culture, a mean

spirited corporate culture, in the Department of Social Services is being

encouraged, and more than encouraged - demanded by the Director of Social

Assistance in this particular memo.

This memo was not distributed to MHA's, but one of the MHA's

had a copy of it - no doubt provided by some social services worker who was

appalled at the attitude being expressed by senior management in this particular

instance.

Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons why this particular

attitude and this particular problem needs to be underlined. Number one is the

physical comfort, the personal dignity, and the needs of these particular

people, senior citizens, physically disabled, and developmentally delayed

persons who are living in their own homes. Number one is to make sure that these

people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave? No leave.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. YOUNG: As a member of the social services committee,

first of all I would like to say a few words of praise for our committee

Chairman, the hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. He certainly did an

excellent job of keeping the hon. members within the allotted ten minute period

for questioning and in doing so, he acted fairly to all. It was certainly a

pleasure to work with the hon. Members for Port au Port, Fortune - Hermitage,

St. John' East, Humber East and the other hon. members who came through for the

different committee meetings.

The hon. Ministers of Health, Education, Environment and

Lands and Social Services, certainly provided us with all the information. I

know that the hon. ministers work diligently with the officials in their

departments in their efforts to reduce the deficit and that they had to make big

decisions within their departments, so that they could still provide services to

the residents of this Province.

As a former educator, and a former member of a hospital

board, and a member of the Premier's Round Table on the Environment and Economy,

and having been involved with community development, I could certainly relate to

a lot of the things that were discussed in the committee meetings, however, I

found that these meetings were certainly a valuable exercise and provided me

with a whole lot of information that I certainly did not have before me, and I

think it was just wonderful that I was asked to participate in that particular

committee.

As the Member for the district of Terra Nova, I can certainly

advise my constituents that this government cares about the people of this

Province, and is acting in a very responsible manner. We have to certainly look

toward the future and avoid past mistakes, on all sides, I guess. The ministers

have certainly acted wisely when considering their expenditures and when

scrutinized by members, they were certainly capable of justifying the budget

estimates for their departments, and I certainly want to say a word about the

hon. Minister for Social Services. He was new to that department but he was just

super yesterday evening, as he always is of course, he was my member - yes, I

will get everything I want from social services if I keep this up - and the

committee members themselves certainly acted in a responsible manner too. They

took this work seriously and rightly so, because that is what we were elected to

do.

My district, and certainly all others will benefit from this

Budget, therefore it was crucial that we get all the information and understand

where and why the increases and the decreases had to be made within the

departments. Although we hear some negative things from some hon. members about

the Budget, I personally feel that it is a good Budget and my people are

certainly going to be the beneficiaries of this Budget.

With regard to the hon. Member for Bonavista South, and the

comments he made about not asking questions yesterday evening, we were certainly

giving the Opposition members, extending them every courtesy to ask all the

questions that they wanted to ask, and believe you me, a free dinner never ever

muzzled me and never will-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Yes, that is what the hon. member suggested,

that that is why we did not ask questions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), bought off.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, dinner would not buy me off, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: What would (inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: It would take more than a day, yes.

Now then, when I did ask questions at the other committee

meetings, which I certainly did, I asked a lot of questions of the Minister of

Health, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Environment and Lands,

they were certainly questions of my own design and not questions that were poked

under my nose by a senior colleague -

AN HON. MEMBER: A freethinker.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, I am a freethinker, I might not be a free

diner but I am a freethinker, and It was interesting. Yesterday evening at the

Committee meeting the Member for Bonavista South was coming down hard on the

social service recipients. He was saying that there was a lot of abuse and so

forth and so on. Then to turn around today and start talking about how they were

being mistreated by the Department of Social Services. I can't believe it. It's

sort of a - is this a Jekyll and Hyde thing?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, you can be both, you know.

MS. YOUNG: You can be both. I see. Okay. Well, thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Oh, thank you, hon. member, I'm so glad you

pointed that out to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a big difference when the press

is here.

MS. YOUNG: Yes. I have compassion for the people in my

district who are on social services, and far be it for me to judge them as to

whether they are in need or whether they're abusing the system. That's not for

me to decide. I hope that the Member for Bonavista South doesn't set himself up

as judge and jury like that.

In closing, I just want to say again that I think it was a

wonderful exercise, that I certainly enjoyed working with all the hon. members,

and look forward to serving on other committees in the future. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments,

more particularly about the Department of Education. Some of them, I do believe,

are very positive, and some of them give cause for some concern.

I'm sure all hon. members have now read thoroughly the Royal

Commission report entitled Our Children and Our Future. Of course, in

Newfoundland we certainly have no greater commitment than that commitment which

we have to our sons and daughters and to the youth of our Province. During the

Committee hearings, many questions were directed to the minister that arose from

the Royal Commission report.

One of the concerns we have is that all of the stakeholders

in the educational system be consulted before there are any changes made to the

structure that we have. I have heard the minister say that he is having a

dialogue with the representatives of the churches. I am not against that. I just

want to assure the minister that there's need for increased dialogue with the

school trustees association; for dialogue with the superintendencies across the

Province; with the school boards; and indeed, direct dialogue with the parents.

Because in the final analysis, the product that we put forward as a province

will have tremendous effects on the education of our Province for many years.

I do believe that the Royal Commission report is the basis

for a tremendous positive change for education in this Province. In fact, many

of the Royal Commission recommendations will find concurrence with members on

this side of the House. However, we want to again state that as we change

direction we give opportunity for all members who have a role to play in

education from the post-secondary institutions, the University, the colleges,

the other areas of adult education, everybody has an opportunity to have some

input into the final decisions that are reached.

Because we want to have a product that evolved, that has the

agreement of the greater majority of the Newfoundland population. I think that

if we're going to have a product that can be implemented it will have to have

the concurrence and acceptance of the general public.

A couple of things I want to highlight that arise out of the

booklet called Profile '92. Some of the information here is of general

knowledge. In the Grade VIII Canadian Test of Basic Skills, the CTBS test, which

is administered in Grade VIII.

We have to have concerns when the Grade V111 students of this

Province, for the most part, do not measure up to the national average. Only two

or three school boards in this Province can say that their students, as tested

on the Canadian Test of Basic Skills, that their students measure up to the

average Canadian standard. That has to be an issue of great concern. However,

there are some things in this report which are very positive and I would like to

highlight just a few of them. The number of students participating in Enterprise

Education, the new entrepreneurial course is very, very encouraging, and I

recommend to all hon. members that they consult with the document because it

shows, for example, that in 1991-92 there were only five schools offering

Enterprise Course No. 2125 but in 1992-93 there were nineteen schools.

As an example as well in the number of students enrolled, in

1991-92 there were fifty-nine males registered in that course but a year later

there were 341. This is a very good program and we want to give encouragement to

the government to continue this kind of initiative. Likewise, I would like to

recommend the continuation of the Co-operative Education Program. These programs

have been adopted in many of the schools and they are very, very good programs

and we want to compliment the government initiatives in that area. I would also

like to comment on several other programs, in particular, Distance Education.

Distance Education is a new initiative and it is something that has been

developed over the last several years. It permits students in the more rural

parts of our Province to be able to access quality type courses and be able to

have them offered to them in their home communities. This is a very good

initiative of the government and we want to compliment them for it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of issues that are

not so positive. I want to address an issue that is of concern to many teachers

in this Province, and that is the issue of disruptive students in the classroom.

How difficult it is to teach from day to day when you have so many people in

your classroom who have learning difficulties and experience the frustration

associated with being retained, or not able to cope with the learning program

that is available for them. This environment is not good for any of the

students, not for the students who are more able and want to continue on with

their studies or for the students who are in the average group. Indeed the real

tragedy is that it is very, very discouraging for the students who are suffering

from various learning disabilities. The difficulty is common in most schools in

the Province. It is an issue which should be of concern to the minister and I am

sure that the minister being an honourable person is well aware of the

difficulties that are presented in classroom settings by having to cope with

disruptive students on a daily basis.

The Budget will also show that there has been a reduction in

the subsidy to school textbooks. In fact the Budget will show that the subsidy

last year was 50 per cent but that subsidy has been dropped to 40 per cent. This

will result, Mr. Speaker, in there being significant increases in the cost of

textbooks in the next year. This is going to make education more expensive for

all parents and the $700,000 which has been taken out of the budget as a

consequence of that move by the government will, of course, have to be picked up

by the parents in September.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to another aspect of the Royal

Commission Report I want to go on record as saying that I am totally in favour

of the parent councils that are proposed in this report. I do believe that

parents in this Province have to take a greater sense of ownership for

education. They have to be more directly involved on a daily basis. I am not

saying they should run the schools - not at all. I am saying we have to look to

our parents more than simply as people who come in and do fund-raising projects.

We have to move them into real positions of ownership - real positions of power.

Certainly, as a former principal of a large junior high

school, I had tremendous support from my parents. I want to say that when you

empower parents it can make your school a place of joy, and make the school a

place where you can have happy students, happy parents and happy teachers.

I want to recommend to the minister that he take all

initiatives to empower parents, to give them some real power in education, and

not to let them remain as people who come into the schools purely for the sake

of raising funds for parent/teacher committees and that kind of thing.

Another initiative that is a joint initiative of the Ministry

of Social Services and the Ministry of Education is the concept of having social

workers directly involved in the school. I am not sure whether all hon. members

here know of this particular initiative, but there is a co-operative program

between the Department of Social Services, the Memorial University School of

Social Work, and the Department of Education, whereby the social workers can do

their internship programs in the school system itself.

Having been involved in that program in the last two MUN

semesters, I can assure hon. members that this is indeed a very, very positive

initiative. It is one that should receive encouragement and necessary funding

from both ministries, because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I may get

an opportunity to continue later on in the afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I am pleased to

have had the opportunity to participate in the review of the Budget estimates.

As a new member of the House I found it most informative. As was pointed out

here this afternoon, I think it is an excellent way for new members to get some

information with regard to the workings of the various departments.

There were a number of issues that were raised in the various

meetings, I think, that are certainly of concern to all of the hon. members of

this House, as to all of the people of this Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

In our discussions on the environment, it is certainly

obvious to all of us in this House that it is something in which everyone has to

take an interest. It is something for which we all have to accept the

responsibility, and I think it is kind of appropriate in this session of the

House, for the first time ever, we have in our ranks a representative of the

aboriginal peoples of this great nation. I think one of the things that all of

us could take a lesson from is the way in which the aboriginal peoples of this

great country have dealt with the environment over the years, the respect they

have shown for it, and it has been based primarily on their understanding that

the land and the resources are something that they hold in trust. No one owns

the land. You hold it in trust and you ensure that it is kept in proper order so

you can pass it on to future generations. I think that if we were to adopt, in

this Province, that kind of attitude then certainly many of the problems,

environmental concerns that confront us, would be eliminated.

I was pleased to see and to learn from our discussions that

the regulations with regard to the disposal of automobile wrecks in this

Province will become a reality this Fall, in September. I think that will

certainly be a tremendous development and will do an awful lot towards improving

the environmental situation, especially in a lot of the rural areas of the

Province.

With regard to education, my hon. friend from Waterford -

Kenmount just touched on a number of the ongoing concerns with regard to

education. There are just a couple of things that I would like to reference

today. The hon. member opposite did mention the distance education and I, too,

want to point out that indeed is a very positive development, especially in

terms of our being able to offer programs to the smaller schools, which are

basically located in the rural areas of the Province, and I think it ties in

nicely as well with the concerns in a lot of the smaller schools about this 2

per cent savings clause that a lot of us have heard about in recent days and

weeks, and among the general public there is not a clear understanding as to

what this clause is all about and certainly the significance of it, but the two

things are related because the argument for retaining the 2 per cent savings

clause, is, that it does provide additional bodies in the smaller schools to

deliver the programs, that you do have quality education available in this

Province wherever you happen to live, but also, I think the distance education

will offer us in time, another option, because using the technology that is

available to us today, there is absolutely no reason why a student attending

school in Lourdes on the Port au Port Peninsula should not be able to avail of

all courses that are available to those students attending the larger

institutions here in the City of St. John's.

I was also pleased to note in the budget estimates this

government's ongoing commitment to providing for bilingual education. Coming

from a bilingual district, I was very pleased to note the budgeted amount of

$1.65 million to provide for the extension to the French school in my district,

and I think this is a tremendous thing and I think it is something that all of

this House should take great pride in, since the Francophone population of this

Province, on a per capita is the smallest in this country, but I think this

government and governments previous, have certainly been on record as

recognizing the aspirations and ambitions of the Francophone people and their

desire to retain and promote their language and culture, and I think it is a

credit to this hon. House that we have all been on record as being supportive of

this and I am pleased to see as the Member for Port au Port, that this

government is committed to see this continue.

In the area of health, there are a couple of things that I

would like to reference. First of all, the Regional Health Boards on which there

has been a lot of debate on in recent weeks. Initially, the response was quite

negative but I think as the debate unfolds, people are seeing more and more now,

that there are some merits to the idea of the regional boards; it just requires

some further debate and some clarification. Also, the thing that I was most

pleased with, in our meeting with the minister and his people dealing with the

estimates from health, was the emphasis on 'wellness', and we have heard the

minister mention this in the House as well. I think this is really nice to see

that they are talking about wellness as opposed to sickness, because I think, as

you travel around the Province now, and certainly in my district and I am sure

in all of the districts in this Province, we see a lot of evidence of people

becoming very concerned about keeping fit thereby keeping in good health.

Everywhere you go now, you see people are walking and I guess

this is certainly, in a large part, contributed to by the Participaction Program

which was instituted some years ago. It is obviously paying off because people

are concerned about their health, they are getting out and a lot of institutions

now are talking about wellness in the workplace, and I mentioned to the minister

at our hearings that I think that certainly maybe this hon. House is something

that we should look at and introduce here to directly benefit all the members,

because in looking around the House, it is pretty sparse here this afternoon,

but having seen the members when they are in attendance, I know a lot of them

are like myself and they certainly could use something to help keep them fit.

From the Justice department, when we dealt with the estimates

from there, one thing that stands out and that I recall and noted, was, the

Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. This Commission is in place I

understand, and has been charged with reviewing and possibly restructuring the

electoral map in this Province. Throughout the election campaign, there was

certainly great support in the media for reduction in the number of districts,

and if you were to listen to the media, they certainly feel that this House is

overstaffed, that we do not need probably half the number of people we have here

now, and I guess this is a debate that we are all going to be engaged in when

the hearings are held and certainly, I am sure that within our own districts, we

have many lobby groups who will be putting forward the arguments for retaining

their districts as they now stand.

Under Social Services: one thing which I want to touch on and

it kind of relates to social services and education and that deals with the idea

of day care or early childhood education and I think it is something that both

departments have an interest in. Right now under the regulations day care is the

responsibility of the Department of Social Services and regulations as it

pertains to preschools comes under that department. I have had some direct

involvement in that. I think it is something that we probably need to revisit

because it does present some problems in trying to provide for preschool

programs when they are being offered within the school setting. What happens is

that the regulations as they are drafted under the day care regulations do not

really apply in the same way to the schools because if it is a program being

offered within the regular school system then we can assume that a lot of the

controls and everything are already in place. So, we really do not need a lot of

the things that are contained within the present act. Also, one of the things

which comes to mind with regards to that, in trying to offer a preschool

program, the ratio as it is indicated there is 8 to 1, which means that you must

have one person working with no more than eight children. This cannot be weighed

even within the school system if you are using parents as volunteers. I think it

is something that needs to be looked at.

I come from an area where we have had considerable experience

and considerable success with the support of the Department of Social Services,

using resources of that department and being able to offer programs which

basically amount to early childhood or headstart programs which enable children

to get a good grounding and it enables them to get an early start. It puts them

on a level playing field with children who are coming from more advantaged

environments.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out as well, I was a little

disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Bonavista South point out that the

members last night from government were being very quiet at the committee

meetings. I can assure him, as my hon. colleague for Terra Nova pointed out, it

certainly was not that we had been bribed by the minister but indeed were, as

the hon. Member for St. John's East pointed out, we were trying to be gracious

toward the hon. members opposite and to allow them the full opportunity of the

three hours that were available to be able to put forward their views and to

raise any questions that they had.

I also must reiterate what I heard the hon. member mention as

well, the hon. Member for Bonavista South -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just be a

couple of minutes to clue up.

I was pleased to hear the hon. member commend the minister by

saying that he was pleased with the fact that he was so compassionate but I also

must point out that unfortunately in the remarks of the hon. Member for

Bonavista South, I did not see the same compassion when he was referencing

people who are on social assistance. I think that was regrettable and I think it

is something that he should take into consideration as well.

Just as a closing remark, I should point out to this hon.

House from my experience prior to coming to this hon. House, I think the thing

that we need to do and it certainly came out in our meetings or in discussions

dealing with the Budget estimates, is that we need to make the bureaucracy more

responsive to the people. In computer parlance there is a need to make our

bureaucracy more user friendly. People are important and they may not always

agree with the response which they receive but they do have the right to be

treated with respect. As someone who has over the years dealt with bureaucracy,

that is not always evident and I think it is something which we should press

for. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say that I

listened with interest to the comments from my friend for Port au Port. It is

somewhat refreshing to hear someone on the other side get up and say something

that makes a lot of sense. I say to the Member for Port au Port that I enjoyed

most of his comments, similar to the comments that were made by my colleague

from Waterford - Kenmount, Mr. Speaker.

There are a couple of issues here which I want to speak on as

well today. Going through the budget over the past few weeks, I made some notes

and one comment that was made by my friend for Port au Port was the health care

boards and that people are beginning to understand the merits and the benefits.

I tend to disagree on that issue because I do not think that the health care

boards in this Province are going to be very effective, I say to the member. I

think that the people on the Burin Peninsula know more. The boards are not being

paid but just take the Burin Peninsula for example, 30,000 people on the Burin

Peninsula. I believe that we should be able to get a board from amongst that

30,000 people that knows what's best in terms of health care and how to deliver

the health care system on the Burin Peninsula.

I don't think that the same dimensions and understanding of

what's best in terms of the delivery of health care for the Burin Peninsula can

come from the people of the Bonavista Peninsula. Nor do I think the people of

the Bonavista Peninsula should be told how to manage their health care system by

the people of the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have different diseases down there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's an administrative function too, you

know.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it's not a matter of

different diseases, I say to the Minister of Health. It's a matter of

administering the health care system. Because I didn't know until now that the

health care boards are involved in the medical services. If that's what the

minister is suggesting. What this government needs, what the people of the

Province need, is a Minister of Health who's concerned about the delivery of

health in this Province, not a Minister of Health who continues to make fun of

the health care system.

I'd say to the Minister of Health that he doesn't know what's

best for the people of this Province either. I think that the initial start up

of boards - on the Burin Peninsula health care board looking after their health

care systems, the people in Western Newfoundland looking after theirs, in the

Corner Brook hospital, I believe it was a good system and it worked. I think it

should be allowed to continue to work, I say to the Minister of Health.

There are other areas that I want to mention. One issue that

has caught my attention recently - and I don't know how other members feel about

it, but I know how I feel about it, and I want to say it. It's dealing with

Justice, by the way. I think that there's something wrong with a system when

someone can decide, out of the blue, for whatever reason, to lay some sort of a

charge against someone in this Province. That individual has to be dragged

through a court system. When the media is finished with it, his name is not only

dragged across - or her name, his or her, for that matter, or any accused person

in this Province. It's not only dragged across this Province. If Newsworld

decides that the story is juicy enough it's dragged from Vancouver to

Newfoundland.

A victim has the right under our system to be protected, for

their identity not to be known. I agree very much with that. That if a victim

has a reason to lay charges that their identity should not be known. But I don't

think that an innocent person in this Province should have their name dragged

all across the globe, all across this Province and the nation if the media so

desires. We've seen some of that recently. Because what can happen, you know,

when you have a court for four or five days, and it takes the jury an hour and

half or two hours to make a decision, and a person is found innocent, they will

never be able to shake - if the charges are serious enough - what's going on.

What's happened - and I'm sure most people know the case that

I'm referring to - what is happening in this Province, and throughout Canada

probably, I don't know, is that you basically are guilty until proven innocent.

I always thought a person was considered innocent until proven guilty. I have

problems with that situation. I don't know - and there's probably nothing the

Minister of Justice or the government or anyone else can do about it. It's

something that I've thought about after I watched some stories in the last

little while, something that I give some consideration to.

I believe very strongly that a victim who lays a charge has

the right to be protected. I have no problem with that. I believe that's the way

that it should be. I don't think it's right that an innocent human being in

society today should have their names smeared from one end of this country to

another. If they are guilty, expose them. If they are guilty, and proven guilty,

and found guilty, expose them. I have no problem with that, but what is

happening today is not just the accused who gets caught up and hurt. It is the

family members. We all know what family members are like. We all know, in this

Province, that people come from families - large families - and they have

mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts, uncles,

and everything else. We all know what large families are like. People can get

hurt. Families can get hurt; and yet that person is innocent, but you can be

ruined financially. Your character can be ruined, and you can never, ever get it

back. You can never, ever get that back, and I believe that is something that

the justice system in this Province should look into.

You can see it from time to time, when the media zooms in on

it - and do they ever zoom in on it - when you see a man walking out of the

court room, day in and day out - or a woman, whatever the case may be. When you

see it happening and you see their family and friends standing by; when you see,

after an hour-and-a-half or two hours of deliberation you listen to what the

judge had to say in

summary to the jury; when you see that happening; when you

see innocent people found innocent being ruined because their names are smeared

across this country and this Province, somebody has a responsibility, in my

opinion, not to see that continuing.

I can tell hon. members that I have a problem with that. It

is not something that I have heard raised very often in this Legislature, but it

is my belief that it is wrong. It is my belief that it is wrong, and I have

always been the type of individual who decided to say what I believe in, in any

case, and I am saying that today, and I hope that all hon. members will probably

express their feelings on it. I have problems with it. We have seen it happen in

this Province several times, and there has been a recent example on the West

Coast.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues that I want to discuss,

because my time is getting short - although I could stay on that issue, I tell

hon. members, for a long time, because it really bothers me - but there are

other issues, and that is dealing with the Department of Social Services. I know

the minister is only new in the department, and I know he was not there when the

Budget was brought in, but today in this Province people who depend on the

Department of Social Services are facing a very serious crisis, I say to the

minister of that department.

There are several areas, and one of the areas the Member for

St. John's East alluded to, and that is the issue of home care for the sick of

this Province. When they are told to cut their budget by 30 per cent, people who

depend on home care are suffering. I would think - I certainly would hope - that

there is no one in this Province getting home care who does not need it, and I

do not think that is the case, but when you then tell the social workers to cut

it by 30 per cent, then 30 per cent of the people who are cut are being

affected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I could have a few minutes to

clue up?

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

MR. TOBIN: Okay, I thank my colleagues.

People are being hurt in that case. Like I said to the

minister, I would certainly hope, and I believe, that the minister will

familiarize himself with that, but I had a man call me the other day. His mother

is living with them. She's ninety-odd years of age, bed-ridden for the most

part. They have two workers. He and his wife are there in the nighttime and

they're both, I think, basically retired as well. As a matter of fact, she's on

her way into hospital now to have surgery herself, the daughter-in-law. They

were told that eight hours a day, I believe it is, is going to be cut from the

home care that they're receiving. That man was so upset he was basically in

tears, crying out for someone to help him. I spoke with the social workers.

Hopefully they'll be able to do something. Get a greater understanding for

what's needed, for what's happening.

There are situations in this Province - and I don't know - I

think we have to be honest with one another. We have to be honest with our

constituents. There are situations in this Province where some family members

probably don't even visit their parents, no matter how sick they are. That

exists. For social workers to expect them, who haven't been in the house, or

been involved with their parents for months and probably years, except to drop

in every now and then or occasionally, to go in and care for them, it's just not

going to happen. It's not going to happen, I say to the members.

The minister probably should talk to his officials and tell

them that this 30 per cent cut is unrealistic. If there are areas that something

can be done and adjustments can be made in times of restraint, probably that can

be done. Probably there are areas certainly - but for someone to send out a memo

from the department - now I didn't see it, but I think I heard a couple of

members mention it today, and the minister would know - saying: cut the program

by 30 per cent. It is not realistic. It just cannot happen. It should not be

expected to happen. I think, and as a matter of fact there's no doubt in my

mind, knowing the minister, that he will familiarize himself with that, and see

if there's some sort of a way that it can be dealt with, rather than an

arbitrary cut of 30 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, there are other issues that I would love to have

the opportunity to get into, I'd like to talk about the VRDP program. I'd like

to talk about the Transition House program, but I know that there are other

members who want to speak. I'd certainly thank my colleagues for giving me the

opportunity to express my feelings on a couple of issues that were very

important to me. I'd probably have an opportunity later but in case I don't

(inaudible).

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I had

opportunity to contribute to the debate regarding the Committee that examined

the departments that came under Government Services, because that was the

Committee I served on. Today I'm taking a few moments to speak with respect to

some of the departments that were examined under the Committee's report that was

received just a short time ago. I want to speak about a couple of things because

there are some departments there that I have an interest in, and some of the

matters that I'm sure I would have wanted to ask questions on, had I been

involved in that Committee's work.

I want to say one of the department's that I have some

familiarity with is the Department of Education, because I've been honoured by

at least some of the people in the Province to serve as their elected school

trustee for the past eight years with a school board. I must say that sitting on

a school board is probably not unlike sitting on a municipal council or some

other body. You do have opportunity to at least learn something. You do have

opportunity to be involved in the area and in the process that goes on with

respect to whatever you're involved with.

The area of education is one area where I have had some

opportunity to work. I would say that if there's probably one misunderstanding

out there in the public it is this: that people do not fully realize and are not

fully aware. They haven't apprised themselves and they haven't been duly

informed of all the good things that are happening with respect to education in

this Province. The most we hear about is the severity of duplication and the

lack of funding for specific programs and that sort of thing. They are mostly

negative things that we hear about coming from the media.

There are some significantly good things happening in the

Department of Education and I think the department is to be commended for the

leadership that it has shown over the past four years. Certainly the school

boards in the Province are to be commended for the effort and the work that they

put into the field of education. Somebody mentioned a little while ago - I think

it was my hon. friend, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, who is also my

member, of course - that the concept of distance education is something that

probably goes unnoticed a lot. But distance education is doing a great service

to the students of this Province who are located in remote areas where otherwise

they would not have access to programs that are now being delivered because we

are in the age of computerization. So that is an initiative that I would commend

the department for funding and for vigorously promoting.

One of the pet peeves, I guess, that I have had and I do have

to this day, however, with respect to one of the things that is happening in and

through the Department of Education, is the situation with substitute teachers.

Now, I realize that the department is doing the best they can. I commend, and I

did commend the former Minister of Education publicly in a forum in Gander a

couple of years ago for what seemed to be a terrible thing he was doing, that

was, reducing the allocation for substitute teacher days. I think what he had

done was appropriate at the time because I do not think it negatively impacted

upon the delivery of education in the Province.

One of the most serious problems we have as a province, Mr.

Speaker, is the lack of employment opportunity for our young people. We don't

have a lot of jobs to go around for anybody, young or old, but certainly, our

youth are amongst those who are suffering the most because of the lack of

employment opportunities. I believe that there is significantly more we can do

in terms of employing our new, well-educated, eager, ambitious and non-burnt out

young teachers as substitutes in the classroom when the need arises. Too often,

I believe, the school boards, the schools, the school principals, are guilty, if

you like, of engaging retired teachers who have been in the workforce and who

have been wanting to get out, who have been due for retirement and have gotten

out. They have been employing them in the classrooms at an inordinately high

rate, as far as I am concerned. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that an initiative

should be taken to ensure that the teachers who are called in on a substitute

basis, where and when needed, are first of all, those who are unemployed, those

who are young and looking for experience and an opportunity to get into the

classroom, and those who, I believe, have probably equally as much to

contribute.

I fought this battle at my own school board level a few

months ago. Predictably, as you usually get from bureaucrats, you get a

counter-argument. One of the arguments that they put forward to me at that time

was this: But we want the most experienced person in the classroom. We want

experience in the classrooms. Well, to that, I say this: that half of the crowd

they are calling back after six months were burnt out for five years, so they

said in their own mind, and had to get out. But as soon as they get out and are

able to take their package and get their pension and serve their time so that

they can come back, they are back in the classroom again. And I'll tell you

what: no talk of burn-out. I can give you names and instances where that is

happening. I am not minimizing, I am not belittling, I am not suggesting that

there is no such thing as burn-out - I believe there is. I believe that after

thirty years in the classroom, anyone who survives that long should not only get

a good pension, they should get a medal to go along with it. I wouldn't want

their job for a farm down south and a herd of cattle on it. Because it is not a

pleasant thing these days, to be a teacher in a classroom. It is a hazardous

job, it is a stressful job.

The point that I am trying to make is that we should, as a

government, ensure that those teachers who have been duly trained and have the

latest in technique and technology, and have the most to give in terms of

ambition, and most to give in terms of energy, are the ones that we should put

in our classrooms at an early and opportune time. I believe that in the area of

substitution, it is a point in time where we can take advantage of these

students. They will gain experience. I believe they will add to the education of

our young people, and I believe it is something that we should consider doing.

In saying that, I say it not as a criticism of what is

happening out there, but I say it rather in terms of a suggestion that probably

we, as hon. members, could make in the constituencies we represent. There are

schools and school boards operating throughout the Province in every area, and I

am sure that we have, in all of our districts, young people who are in a

situation of being educated and unemployed. And I would suggest that we do what

we can to see that they get an opportunity to at least get in the classroom and

let us see if they have the qualifications. I am not saying that every student

who comes out of university, Mr. Speaker, and is trained to teach, is a good

teacher, any more than every mechanic who is trained to fix a car, turns out to

be a good mechanic, but at least, they should have the opportunity to get in the

classroom and gain a little bit of experience. And I believe it will help with

our unemployment rate - I think it will help reduce the numbers of people who

are scrambling for jobs.

The Department of Social Services, of course, has to be cut

back, but I have great concern for the hon. members on the other side, when they

talk about all of the cuts that are happening in social services, but they do

not reflect upon something that I mentioned yesterday when I spoke, and that is,

the responsibility for some of those cuts that should be placed on the Federal

Government because of the cuts that they are making in the funding that they are

giving to the area of social services. I referred to housing yesterday and I

will refer to it again now, because, even in St. John's North, which is deemed

to be an urban seat where, probably people think there are no problems with

housing and less problems with unemployment, I can assure you that at least 50

per cent of the calls that I have gotten in my short tenure have been related to

public housing, the need for better housing, and the need for additional public

housing.

As far as the Department of Health is concerned, I listened a

little while ago to one of the members on the other side talking about the long,

lineup of people waiting for surgical, medical procedures in our hospitals. One

of the points they talked about was the big long wait that is out there for

people to get open heart surgery. I don't deny that there may be instances or

situations where people are waiting for procedures, but my hon. colleague from

Ferryland, whom I think brought that to the floor of the House some time ago,

saying there were long lineups for open heart surgery, I just want to tell him

for his encouragement, I just want to tell him for his edification, and so to

relieve his mind a little bit, that a friend of mine, whom I met two Sunday

mornings ago in church, had just come in from a rural area to go on the waiting

list for quadruple bypass; four or five procedures, I suppose that is quadruple,

it is more than triplicate, and that is as far as I can get right now. So he had

to get four or five bypasses done and he had come in the previous week, I was

speaking with him on Sunday morning, the following Tuesday, two days after, he

was in the hospital, was called in, had his procedure done and now he has gone

home. So, Sir, I don't deny that there may be lineups, but, Mr. Speaker, I want

to assure you, and the hon. member who had that concern, that there are good

things happening in the health care system, as well, and I say that for his

edification and enlightenment. What is happening in education? We could talk

about some of the good things that are happening in the Department of the

Environment.

For the past two years, I have been honoured, I guess, and

privileged, at the request of the Mayor of the City of St. John's, Shannie Duff,

to chair the first board known as 'St. John's Clean and Beautiful'. Now, that is

an organization that is affiliated with an outfit called: 'Keep America

Beautiful'. It is an affiliation of 400 or 500 municipalities throughout North

America, and I can tell you that there are good things happening with respect to

environmental initiatives, not only within the City of St. John's, but within

the Province, and I believe the program that was announced last week, this core

of young environmentalists that will be engaged throughout the Summer to do some

good things in terms of clean-up and assessment, I think is an indication of the

interest, an indication of the support, an indication of the commitment that

this government has to ensuring that we have a community environment in which

all of us can live.

Our communities must be made more environmentally friendly,

more environmentally clean, they must be made better places to live, and the

place to start, Mr. Speaker, in ensuring that we have the mind-set in our

citizenry that this is what has to happen,