May 28,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to routine business, on behalf of hon.

members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries today, sixty students

from Saints Peter and Paul School in Bonavista in the district of Banavista

South. These students are accompanied by their teachers, Tom Maddicks, Terry

Maloney, Dianne Curtis, Morris Lewis, Alice Lewis and student assistant Margaret

Quinton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House

that an election writ has been issued for the district of Naskaupi that will see

the election called for Thursday, June 25. Information concerning the details

and matters as to the running of the election will, of course, as in the

ordinary course, be provided by the Chief Electoral Officer or the acting Chief

Electoral Officer.

It has been our practice, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we

had about four weeks or so of notice of the call of the by-election, but

everybody has been very much aware that a by-election was imminent and would be

called as soon as possible, and I am happy to advise the House that it will be

called and be held at that time.

There is another by-election imminent, but as, of course, the

seat is not right at this moment vacant and the member, if he were in the House,

would have the privilege of hearing a by-election for his seat being called, the

government has to wait until it is formally vacant but I should advise the

House, Mr. Speaker, that we would intend to call it without any delay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We welcome the news. It has been long anticipated and not

only Naskaupi which is going to be most interesting, but we await the

announcement for Ferryland, as well. I am sure both will be most interesting

contests, and democracy I am sure, will be displayed in great fashion in both

Naskaupi and Ferryland once the Premier announces the date for that one, so we

welcome the news.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a statement today regarding Environment Week, which is

next week. I had hoped to have a number of goodies at everyone's desk for today,

but due to the unexpected cancelling of the House for tomorrow, you will have to

wait until Monday. There will be a variety of things to help you promote

Environment Week.

Mr. Speaker, "It's up to all of us." This is the theme for

Environment Week 1992 and it is most fitting as environmental awareness is being

continually raised to new levels. More and more people are becoming

environmentally conscious in many aspects of their everyday lives. The water we

drink, the air we breathe, the land and resources we use - the environment is

all around us. We depend on the environment for our existence and increasingly,

our water, air, land and resources are depending on us for their own survival.

Most people would agree that environmental awareness begins

with education. Instilling values in today's youth will reap benefits for

tomorrow. To this end, the provincial Department of Environment and Lands, with

the Department of Education, has adapted an exciting environmental program

developed by the Canadian and American Wildlife Federations called Project Wild

for the Province's classrooms. The primary focus is on wildlife and serves to

foster informed decisions, responsible behaviour, and constructive actions by

integrating aspects of wildlife and the environment into courses already part of

the curriculum.

Another example which shows that the environment has become

more prevalent in everyday society is the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED). Over 130 nations will gather in Brazil in

June to discuss the environment on a global scale. One of the topics that will

be on the agenda is the critical issue of over-fishing in the northwest Atlantic

Ocean. The fish stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks are facing

extinction. We must adopt an immediate solution to the problem of the world's

over-fishing. If not, it may be too late and one of the world's worst ecological

disasters will occur.

This crisis serves to provide us with yet another reason why

we must protect our world. If we don't take care of it, we stand to lose

valuable resources that may never return and possibly do irreparable damage to

our air, water, and land. Protecting the environment, Mr. Speaker, is, indeed,

'up to all of us'.

I am pleased then to proclaim the week of June 1-7, 1992 as

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENT WEEK, and I encourage all the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador to participate in the activities and events scheduled for this special

week.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

thank the minister also for giving me an advance copy of her notice. It is

interesting that, starting on Monday, we have Environment Week. I think we are

all concerned about the environment - the environment of the world, the

environment of our country, and the environment of our Province. Nothing is more

serious than today when we think about the mess that our Province is in. The

mess in Long Harbour that is going to take, the Premier said, twenty years to

clean up. I say to the minister that she should put more action into what she is

saying, and let's see some work being done in our Province to clean up the awful

mess that is left there by big industries such as Albright and Wilson have left

over in Long Harbour.

One other thing I wanted to note is that one of the greatest

disasters of our fisheries - before this particular one now of overfishing - was

the big disaster back in 1969 in Long Harbour, when Placentia Bay was

practically polluted. Even today, as we are speaking now, federal Fisheries,

and, I hope, our department, are involved in checking the recent fish that has

been caught in the Long Harbour area, such as the red herring as has been

reported by the media. I hope the minister will put more action into what she is

saying. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, the Chair

would like, on behalf of hon. members, to welcome to the public galleries today,

Judy Edwards, R.N., President of the Association of Injured and Disabled Nurses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Labour. Recently, we have received a number of concerns from

injured nurses in this Province that they are no longer eligible for retraining

under Workers' Compensation benefits. Previously, they were eligible for up to

three years, and then it seems that it got reduced to one, and now, apparently,

there is no training at all. Once they reach a maximum level of recovery they

engage in a ten-week job search. After that, despite the fact that their injury

occurred on the job, they can't find jobs, and they are thrown to the wolves.

Can the minister confirm that this is true? That Workers' will no longer take

any responsibility following the completion of the ten-week job search?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question being raised so that it could be dealt with in this public manner. I

have met over the past while with a number of individual injured nurses who have

asked to see me, as minister, and we have met. Just yesterday I met with the

president, the past president, and the secretary of the Association of Injured

and Disabled Nurses. We dealt with, at some length, their legitimate concerns

about the changes in the rehabilitation policies at Workers' Compensation and

how they feel it impacts and affects them.

I am a little surprised that the hon. member would use such

language as 'throwing people to the wolves' and so on in his question, because

it is far from the truth.

We recognize that there are serious problems in all aspects

of workers' compensation that we are dealing with as a government, and that the

rehabilitation and retraining options are just one aspect of very serious

problems in the whole system that are currently under review and being addressed

by the government.

We have indicated, as a result of the meeting yesterday, that

I will be writing the board of the commission to ask if in fact they had

considered all the points that were raised in the meeting yesterday when they

developed their new policy, because the government appoints the board. The board

formulates and then sees implemented the policies of the workers' compensation

system, which is not funded by government; which is contributed to by employers

only, and which is there for the benefit of injured workers.

We have undertaken, and I have undertaken, as a result of

that meeting, to have the board of the commission check to see that they were

aware of all of the concerns raised to me when they implemented and decided upon

the new rehabilitation policy that will take place shortly.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the minister the same question. Following the

completion of the ten week job search, is it true that the injured workers will

no longer be eligible for any benefits from Workers' Compensation? Is that now

the policy?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite would

know, and all the members in the House would know - who have made intercession

on behalf of all categories and types of injured workers, including injured

nurses - that the treatment of an individual at the commission can be widely

variant depending upon the extent of injury, the treatment that is going on, the

medical rehabilitation, and the need, on an individual basis, for rehabilitation

and/or retraining. Whether or not anyone has exhausted all of the options and

what occurs to them is an individual assessment done based on the policies of

the commission and what may happen to any one individual, even in the same

category, whether it be a nurse or any other of the groups, could be very

different. In terms of interpreting the policy, every person in the system,

through no fault of their own, who is injured and trying to access the benefits

to which they are entitled, is treated on an individual case basis at the

commission, consistent with the policies of the commission.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister can skate better

now than he could when he was playing hockey.

Presently the collective agreement with the nurses and

several other hospital employees allows for a top-up to make up for the

difference between what they get in compensation and what they would normally be

entitled to. The proposed changes in workers' compensation benefits would

obviously require these agencies to come up with more funding to bring it up to

100 per cent. Is it the plan of this administration to change that clause of the

collective agreement by either eliminating the 10 per cent or will they restrict

the employers from guaranteeing the 100 per cent rate that is presently in

effect?

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

Labour Relations.

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

The issue of top-up is again just like all the others, one

that is being dealt with currently in the discussions we are undertaking in

terms of what is going to happen to the full workers' compensation system. I

will point out again, and I appreciate the question, that it is common knowledge

and understood by representatives of the different unions that represent workers

in Newfoundland and some of their members who happen to be injured and who

happen to be availing of workers' compensation, that there had been a decision,

I guess, taken by the Cabinet of the previous administration dating back to 1984

suggesting that if at all possible through the collective bargaining process

that the idea of top-up should be removed from collective agreements in the

Province.

It has not been acted upon yet but it is certainly something

that is under consideration and certainly each of the unions and the

representatives of all the unions in the public service in Newfoundland have

been aware for some time that that is an issue that is being considered in light

of all the other changes that will have to occur and will be announced as a

total package when we have made our decisions as a government. We will announce

the total changes of every aspect of workers' compensation that we have

authority to deal with, and will deal with. It will be announced as a total

package as to what all the changes are. It is clear and it has been understood

for some time by the representatives of injured workers, and all workers in

Newfoundland, that that is an item that has been under discussion.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indicates that when the changes occur all areas

will be considered. Is it not a fact that this is presently a component of the

collective agreement? Is the minister, in order to effect these changes, going

to break the collective agreement, introduce further legislation as he has

already with Bill 16 or 17 to change the benefits of workers in this Province?

Is the minister planning further contract stripping? Is that what he intends to

do?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe in answer to a similar question last week by the

hon. Member for St. John's East I took the opportunity to indicate to the House

that just recently in New Brunswick the New Brunswick Legislature in looking at

its changes did bring in a piece of legislation outlining top-up provisions in

contracts. That will be considered. If that is the decision that we reach, then

there would have to be another decision as to what happens in the interim with

existing provisions to the point where they may be outlawed. Those kinds of

decisions are not yet taken, they are under consideration and, as I indicated

before, we will be announcing publicly and, hopefully, in this House the total

of all the different changes that are within our gambit, as the government, to

control and to effect in workers' compensation. We will announce the total

package and if that is a part of it, the method in which it will be addressed

will be explained at that time.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier, following up on yesterday

and the last few days, on the Roddickton crab plant situation.

Yesterday I asked the Premier if he would consider a full

investigation into that, and having had time to reflect on the situation in

Roddickton the Premier gave an answer as best he could going back on memory for

a couple of years when he had a couple of meetings with members of the council.

I am wondering now, on reflection, if the Premier would consider a full-scale

investigation into the situation concerning the Roddickton fish plant?

I have had, yesterday and this morning, five calls from the

area again. People there feel that the only way this is going to be cleared up

is for there to be a full-scale investigation. The Department of Fisheries has a

crab licence supposedly associated with the plant. NLDC had some money

arrangements with the operator and so on. There are allegations that there were

improprieties in having the insurance cheque countersigned and all this stuff. I

am wondering if the Premier might consider that for the people of Roddickton, to

clear up this mess there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I heard again this morning on

the radio a report of the hon. member's comments in the House. Maybe I wasn't

listening quite as well as I should have yesterday. I haven't had time to go

back to Hansard. I am very concerned about some of the allegations he made in

the House yesterday. I say to the hon. member: If he has any reason to believe

there is any validity to those suggestions, please take your information to the

police right away so that a proper investigation can be carried out. Don't damn

people by innuendo by asking questions like....will you conduct an investigation

into this affair in the House of Assembly? If you think there is anything wrong,

take your information to the police and get a totally independent opinion -

because the inference in the hon. member's comments yesterday are such that I am

quite concerned about it. If there is anything of that nature, it should be

taken to the police.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have obtained copy of the lease. It is a

lease that was entered into in 1983, between two private parties, the town and

the company.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the provisions of it provides that

if, during the term of the lease or any renewal thereof, the premises are

destroyed by fire, etc., the tenant will have the option of having any insurance

proceeds related thereto applied to the rebuilding of the demised premises and,

in the meantime, shall pay rent only to the time of destruction with the payment

of the rent to recommence on completion of the building of the demised premises.

The other clause provides this with respect to the insurance

- or provides this with respect to an option to purchase: The tenant, during the

term of the lease, or any renewal thereof, shall have a option to purchase the

premises for the sum of $50,000. Now, after the tenant got it, I understand

there was a substantial piece added to it, or a substantial addition to the

plant. But the original one gave the purchaser - or the tenant an option to

purchase for $50,000, which shall be exercised by written notice of exercise

executed under the seal of the tenant and given to the landlord, together with a

certified cheque for $5,000 as the deposit. The balance of the purchase price

shall be paid by certified cheque on closing. The notice from the tenant

exercising the option shall constitute a binding agreement of purchase and sale,

and any rent paid at any time from the commencement of the lease to the closing

date will be credited against the purchase price.

That, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, created a situation

where the tenant was able to say, We are in control of the rebuilding and we

will control that. I understand that the cheque was made payable jointly to

NLDC, the development corporation that loaned some money at the time for the

building of the addition, I think, of the plant, and payable to the tenant,

Canada Bay Seafoods, and to the town. The town refused to sign the lease without

a commitment that the plant would sign the cheque, without a commitment that it

would be rebuilt. I understand that this went on for some time. Apparently,

later, money was released to NLDC or they were paid.

Some time ago, last October, I think, the information says,

the cheque was endorsed by the town in October of 1990 at a meeting with members

of the council and Canada Bay Seafoods. Not all members of the council were

present. I think one or more may not have been, but the majority of the council

were there, and apparently, they signed the cheque.

Mr. Speaker, that is the best information I can give the

House at the moment. If the hon. member has any other things that cause him

concern, if he thinks there is anything wrong - some of the comments he made

yesterday lead me to believe he may, and if he does, take the information to the

police immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. the Opposition House Leader, I

just wanted to bring to the attention of hon. members something that I have on

several occasions, and that is about interrupting members when they are

speaking. I notice that the Member for Torngat Mountains quite frequently is

interrupting. Maybe he is not aware of it, but I would ask the hon. member to

please restrain himself. Sometimes his remarks are provocative and it doesn't

add to the flow of Question Period.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: He wants badly to provoke me.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the Premier, off the

top, the concerns that I have raised here are concerns that have been brought

forth to me by a substantial number of people from the Roddickton area. I am

really surprised at the number of calls I have had over the last week or so, I

say to the Premier, from the area, that are bringing forth these concerns about

this, what appears to be a messy affair surrounding the burning of that plant,

and the signing of the cheques. I asked the acting Minister of Municipal Affairs

yesterday if he would check to see. I understand there was a request for an

investigation, that the countersigning of the cheques was not authorized by the

council, that the Mayor of the day went off to a meeting with the operator and

signed the cheques without the rest of the council knowing it.

So these are the kinds of things. That involves the

provincial Department of Municipal Affairs. It involves the Department of

Fisheries from the licensing end of things. The Newfoundland and Labrador

Development Corporation was involved from their funding arrangements. So you

can't just slough it off and say that the government has no involvement here,

Mr. Speaker. So that is why I asked the Premier the question: Would he, or his

Minister of Justice, look at a full-scale investigation into this situation here

to clear the matter up once and for all? It is on the concerns, the wishes and

the requests of the people of Roddickton that I am asking the Premier that -

such things as the Minister of Health, who was the mayor of the day, who signed

the lease, and so on. Tthe situation is very fuzzy and messy, I say to the

Premier, so I ask him once again, would he seriously consider that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will take a copy of

yesterday's Hansard, and today's, when I get it, and I will send it to the

Superintendent of the RCMP and ask him to ensure that whatever investigation the

comments of the hon. member justifies, to see that it is carried out. That's no

problem. If the hon. member won't do it himself, then I will do it for him.

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

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

appreciate that offer and that answer from the Premier. I want to go to the -

MS. VERGE: All those questions (inaudible) breach of the

(inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, but I wanted to go a supplementary to

the Minister of Fisheries. The people of Roddickton want me to ask the Minister

of Fisheries, can he guarantee that that crab processing license will be left

there in case this whole affair gets straightened out? Will that license be left

there for them in case they are successful in cleaning up this mess and finding

another operator for the plant? Will that be left there for them?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the people of Roddickton,

including the member for the district, have already been given that assurance by

me, that I have no intention of authorizing the transfer of that license out of

Roddickton. If an operator comes along, then, of course, the license will be

there for that operator.

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

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

supplementary to the minister: The situation at Fleur de Lys - my colleague for

Green Bay has brought up the matter, and so on. I am told that plant has now

been renovated and ready for crab processing. Would the minister inform the

House where that processing - if there has been one issued, where it came from,

or if there is one going to be transferred there, where it will come from? What

is the situation with that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there is a plant in Fleur de

Lys, for which we have a request in from an operator to transfer a license from

the plant in Little Bay Islands to the plant in Fleur de Lys. Now, there is a

procedure that must be followed in cases where license transfers are requested.

That procedure involves the advertising in the various papers precisely what is

intended to be done. That is the process that is being followed now. In fact, I

believe that this weekend there will be an ad appearing in the local papers

requesting input from any aggrieved person with respect to a possible transfer.

Again, I can assure him, as I have assured the Member for the Green Bay

district, and the mayor and councillors of Little Bay Islands, that before any

transfer is made that procedure will be followed to the letter. That is in the

process of being done now.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Finance. In the minister's Budget, the minister announced

that he would be replacing the school tax with increases to his infamous payroll

tax. He said that he would be funding education through this means, and that

those who were being relieved of school tax would pay about an equivalent amount

through payroll tax, and in the same proportions as they were taxed through

school tax. In other words, it would be equitable to all.

Yet the minister applied a tax of 1 per cent to

resource-based industries, and increased all other industries that were already

paying payroll tax, by .5 per cent. So, resource-based industries, including the

fishing industry, received an increase of 1 per cent payroll tax, other

industries .5 per cent. How does the minister justify his statement, Mr.

Speaker, that he would be doing it equitably, when resource-based industries had

an increase twice as large as other industries?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member is

twisting the budgetary words. What we said was that we would be replacing the

school tax on individuals and companies in the same proportions as was there

before, and that is what we did.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is going

to do it but he doesn't do it. He obviously taxed resource-based industries

more. A study done by the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador on

twenty of their member companies, in fact, showed that last year, those twenty

companies paid $430,000 in school taxes,

whereas, this year, they are being

forced to pay, under the payroll tax, $1,120,000, almost three times as much.

How can the minister say that he simply replaced the school tax by his infamous

payroll tax?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All we decided to do was replace the school tax portion,

which companies paid through property assessment, with a different form of tax.

Naturally, this will fall out on different companies in different ways.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the amount paid by

companies, by the business sector, is $2 million less than the school tax which

it replaces.

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

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. minister might have thought that it

was $2 million less, but experience is telling us that, indeed, businesses are

paying more, as I just indicated from those twenty surveyed. In fact, my

colleague from Fogo spoke with a company this morning that paid $2,000 last year

and will pay $20,000 this year.

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that, as it relates to the

fishing industry, in particular, all companies are being assessed school tax for

the first half of the year up to the end of June and then they will be assessed

payroll tax from July 1 on? In the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, is the

minister aware that virtually all of the payroll, certainly, by far the greatest

percentage of the payroll, is paid out in the second half of the year?

Therefore, they are paying school tax for the first half of the year and all of

the payroll tax for the second half of the year. Will the minister roll back for

resource-based industry, particularly the fishing industry, the payroll tax to a

half of 1 per cent to give them relief for this first year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the resource industries are

being treated differently from the other industries in the Province. They pay a

smaller payroll tax than any other industry, and I think we are giving them a

very good break in that way. Other businesses are complaining to us that the

renewable resource industries are paying less tax than they should, from their

point of view. So it is pretty difficult to make things even for every single

company. We feel that the move from the school tax to the income tax/payroll tax

is being eminently appreciated by the people of the Province. Any move by hon.

members opposite to restore the past will not be appreciated by the people in

this Province.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister is not

prepared or is unable to realize that the fishing industry is not being treated

fairly, since their payroll comes in the second half of the year.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask one final question. It is a different

question and I ask it to the Premier. In the Premier's absence last week, I

asked some questions of the Minister of Housing related to the Housing

Corporation policy of developing new lands. Specifically, I referred to the

Southlands in Mount Pearl and those types of basically cost-recovery type

developments. The minister was a little fuzzy on his answer.

Let me ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is it this government's

policy to permit the Housing Corporation to continue with development of

building lots for sale at an economic recovery basis, or has there been a change

of policy? Specifically, Mr. Speaker: Has there been a change of policy in

relation to the Southlands? Has the Housing Corporation been directed to cease

further development of the Southlands, or is government considering such a

policy change? Could the Premier answer that, Mr. Speaker, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my recollection, off the top

of my head - I don't remember the detail of every policy we have decided. I

expect the minister gave you the answer. He is not here today. I have no idea

what the minister said to you last week, but my recollection is that we just

recently considered that question - I say recently, six months ago - of the

policy of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing developing lands, and developing

from two points of view, developing also from a commercial point of view in

selling lands and making a profit on them, although my sense is that that is not

the primary role and should not be the focus of the Housing Corporation. They

should be focusing on providing housing for people who have difficulty providing

housing for themselves. That should be there primary focus but my recollection

is, that we agreed that they could continue some moderate level or modest level

of this kind of thing, where it was necessary to ensure that market factors

necessitated it, but where market factors did not necessitate it, they should

not be competing with the private sector in that area.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services.

The figures revealed by the minister on March 26, concerning

the number of people on social assistance show an increase, Mr. Speaker, in 40

per cent of those single able-bodied persons receiving social assistance, this

at the rate, Mr. Speaker, of $128 a month, and I ask the Minister of Social

Services, is that all that thousands and thousands of people who are unemployed

in this Province have to look forward to when their unemployment insurance runs

out?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, yes. We have had an increase in

caseloads in the category he mentions and other categories as well. The amounts

that are available for single, able-bodied social assistance are under review;

we are presently reviewing of course, as I think I explained to the House for

the previous question, all categories of social assistance, including single,

able-bodied assistance and looking at the amounts that we pay out in those

categories.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared

to explain to the House why single, able-bodied persons receive the sum of $128

per month, when those with criminal records, Mr. Speaker, are entitled to

receive three or four times that much? Isn't that an incentive to those who are

desperate, because of the policies of this government, to go ahead and commit

crimes to get more money out of them?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the member draws an unfair

comparison, I believe, in the sense that in categories where we provide

assistance to people who are in closed custody, obviously there is a staff

involvement, there is a cost of providing that care that is far in excess of the

dollars that are made available to single, able-bodied people, so it is not a

fair comparison and indeed we do spend more money in closed custody situations,

particularly because of the staffing requirement that is necessary.

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

MR. HARRIS: The minister misunderstands. The persons who

approach the government, who can say to the government they have a criminal

record are entitled to more money than single, able-bodied persons who don't. I

was suggesting to the minister that his policies, his government policies in

fact, encourage people to commit crimes potentially because his policies in fact

can offer an incentive for them to do that by giving more accountability to

those people who are in that category than people who are merely unemployed, Mr.

Speaker, and have no source of income other than the starvation wages

(inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I ask him to get to

it.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister explain why it is that a

person with a criminal record, going to his office, can get three or four times

the amount in social assistance than a person who is able-bodied?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that

difference and I will check the comparison he makes, but I am certainly not

aware that three times the amount exists in the case of a person who seeks

assistance who has a criminal record. Certainly I will check that out. I find it

hard to fathom that that would be the case and I repeat, that in cases where we

have extra expenses due to staffing or other costs, naturally the expenses would

be greater, but I do not foresee this situation. If he is making the comment I

assume he has checked it out, where, three or four times the amount is paid out

in a circumstance where a person has a criminal record, but I will check the

comparison he makes.

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

time for a short question.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. The day before yesterday I attended a loggers demonstration in Corner

Brook. We had a situation where a great number of loggers working for the Kruger

Company have not been recalled. They have small numbers of people being recalled

for large numbers of weeks, rather than the work being shared and spread over

more people. I indicated in my public comments to the gathering that the sign of

a good corporate citizen in Newfoundland, is one who bends over backward, if

necessary, to insure that every worker, the normal workforce gets their stamps.

I would ask the hon. minister, would he use his good offices

to impress upon the Kruger Company, that such should be the case?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, not yet this spring but on

several occasions leading up to this, both myself and my colleague, the Minster

of Forestry and Agriculture, had meetings that involved the two paper companies

that are operating in the Province at the time and representatives of the

Canadian Paper Workers Union, who represent just about all these loggers

involved and we have discussed that issue at some length.

It is clear that there are some significant changes occurring

in how the woods operations of both the companies are being managed and we have

in the past asked for the maximum amount of co-operation between the union

representing the loggers and the company, in terms of trying to manage their

business in the best interest of keeping it viable and operational in the

Province. We have been assured that they would both give their best interest and

their best efforts to making sure that the loggers, the workers in this case,

are not unnecessarily disadvantaged, but we have never gone to the point of

trying to suggest to either of the companies how they should try to run their

affairs. We have asked them to run their affairs in the best way they can to

ensure their viability as a company and also to take into consideration the

views expressed on behalf of the loggers by their union representatives and

leaders.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the Annual Report of the Board of

Commissioners of Public Utilities on the operations carried out under the

Automobile Insurance Act, submitted for the period January 1, 1991 to March 31,

Notices of Motion

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

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

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

Control Act, 1973, And The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973".

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

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

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

Institutions Act", and that will be Bill 33.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to a question asked

yesterday by the Opposition House Leader concerning the red herring incident in

Long Harbour, I want to report to the House that my field staff contacted the

chairman of the Fishermen's Committee of Long Harbour with reference to the red

herring controversy.

My field people were advised by the Fishermen's Committee

Chairman that the incidents of red herring in the area are not uncommon. There

have been a few caught in nets every year for the past number of years. In fact

the local chairman informed my field people that he himself, out of a catch of

1,000 pounds of herring, found three or four red herring amongst the catch.

I am told as well that officials of the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans are in the area and are now endeavouring to collect some

specimen of these herring to take back to their laboratory for testing. So it

appears there is not too much to this, except something that occurs almost every

year, and that is a small number of red herring show up.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I was asked three questions

yesterday by the Opposition House Leader. One of them was: Could the minister

tell the House who endorsed the cheque on behalf of council? This is the

Roddickton council; and if in fact the cheque was endorsed with the knowledge

and approval of the full council of Roddickton?

The cheque was endorsed by the Mayor and one other councillor

at a meeting held with representatives of Canada Bay Seafoods Limited in Corner

Brook. While an official council meeting was not held, the majority of the

council was present.

The second question was: Could the minister find out if any

portion of the amount of $850,000 insurance money was paid to the Town of

Roddickton?

No, the town's equity of approximately $35,000 was utilized

in the reconstruction of the plant after council was given a commitment by the

company to reconstruct same.

Was there a request to the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to investigate the circumstances surrounding the insurance

claim and the manner in which it was endorsed on behalf of the Roddickton

council? Was an investigation asked for? Was there an investigation? What did

the department find out?

The answer is: Yes, an investigation was done, and it was

found that there was no problem with the way in which the insurance claim was

endorsed on behalf of council. An investigation was asked for by one councillor

of the Town of Roddickton. An investigation further revealed that the minutes of

the meeting of council clearly state that council was in full agreement with the

cheque signing, and that there was no conflict of interest by councillors.

I table this, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, my response is to the question

on the Order Paper regarding travel between September 17 and October 15, 1991,

and I am pleased to table that response.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition of 1,148 citizens of Corner

Brook and the surrounding area. I wholeheartedly support the petition and have

signed it. The prayer reads as follows: Recent proposals -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member may proceed.

MS. VERGE: Recent proposals to workers' compensation will

affect the lives of all injured workers severely. These recommendations include

drastic reductions in salary, and changes to the retraining policy. We appeal to

you to please consider the effects these changes will have on all of us injured

workers as well as the public. We realize the desperate conditions of workers'

compensation but please search for alternative solutions with less damaging

effects in these desperate economic times.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was organized by three women who

live in Corner Brook and two of them are injured nurses with whom I have spoken.

These two nurses hurt their backs on the job at Western Memorial Regional

Hospital and they have been off work on workers' compensation benefits for some

time. Neither one of them wants to be off work on workers' compensation. Both of

them in fact are quite demoralized but they are physically unable to resume

their nursing jobs and as of yet have not recovered to the point of being able

to do any other type of work for which any employment opportunity exists in the

area. These nurses have taken a leadership role in maintaining appropriate

workers' compensation benefits, not only for themselves but for hundreds and

hundreds of other injured workers and for healthy workers who may find

themselves in a similar situation.

Mr. Speaker, it is significant that the leaders of this

petition are injured nurses because there has been an alarming increase in the

incidents of nursing workplace injuries over the past few years. Your Honour

introduced the president of the Association of Injured and Disabled Nurses a

little while ago when we started sitting this afternoon. According to that

association in the space of five years, from 1985 until 1989 there was more than

a sixfold increase in the number of nurses off work due to injuries and

receiving workers' compensation. In 1985 the number was fifty-seven and in 1989

the number was 338. The Workers' Compensation Commission has refused the

statistics for the last three years but the association knows that there has

been a further increase. This gives rise to several questions. Has there been

under-staffing in our health care institutions where all these nurses have

suffered injuries? Has there been inappropriate placement of staff in the

institutions? Has there been defective or unsafe apparatus equipment? Has there

been too little prevention effort?

According to the association on the Avalon Peninsula only the

General Hospital, which operates the hospital at the Health Sciences Centre and

the Leonard Miller Centre, have back injury prevention programs. None of the

other health care institutions on the Avalon Peninsula yet has a back injury

prevention program. Have the delays in diagnosis and treatment exacerbated

injuries and time lost from work? Listening to the leaders of the Association of

Injured and Disabled Nurses I am convinced that there have been problems on each

of these counts and it is time that government listened to the pleas of these

injured nurses and other injured workers so that better precautions are taken on

the work site so that greater prevention efforts are mounted and so that the

Workers' Compensation Commission responds more appropriately and more speedily

to workers who are injured, thereby minimizing time lost from work and

facilitating the process of retraining and re-entering the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, for those workers who are already off work due

to injuries, the threatened cuts in income and retraining benefits are very,

very worrying. What is an injured nurse in Corner Brook to do if her injury is

so severe that she has had to have a spinal fusion and the spinal fusing has not

been successful? What is the injured nurse who now has to wear a body cast most

of the day to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to support the

petition by some, I think, 1,100 citizens of the Corner Brook area with respect

to the proposed changes and reduction of benefits that are pending with the

Workers' Compensation Board.

What is most alarming about this change that just recently

developed was the lack of consultation with the groups that were most affected

by it. While the minister might try to say that Workers' Compensation is a

completely autonomous body, that is not the case. The minister might want us to

believe it is. They operate on instructions given to them by this

administration. If this administration tells them to reduce their expenses, they

reduce their expenses; if they are told to reduce benefits, they reduce

benefits. Government might not tell them how but they give them explicit

instructions as what to do.

This has been an ongoing concern for a number of people,

particularly with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of people who have been

injured. It takes months to get a proper diagnosis in this Province. Once it is

diagnosed, it is even longer to get medical treatment. Surgical intervention

takes years in some cases. Once it is complete - the minister can check it out

and he will find that it is true - it is a virtual impossibility to get physical

therapy in this Province. As a matter of fact, I had an injured worker tell me

that they have been waiting for weeks to get therapy through Workers'

Compensation, so in desperation they called the therapy clinic and said they had

a private insurance plan, and immediately they could get recognition.

There is something wrong with our system when you can get

physical therapy services through a private insurance company but it is not

available through Workers' Compensation. If you talk to the people who run these

clinics they will tell you that the main reason is the delay in Workers'

Compensation processing payment. It takes them months to get paid for their

services. The minister should realise that. If the problem at Workers' is that

there is insufficient staff to deal with the problems then the minister should

see that they get more. Because in the long run, while you are going to have

spend initially, it will benefit Workers' Compensation Board, because they will

have to have less in payouts.

The minister has been told this on numerous occasions, I am

sure, over the years. Why he continues to do nothing about it is beyond me.

Apparently what he wants to do is blame all the problems at Workers' on the

injured workers. Attacking those who are most vulnerable in this Province. It

seems to continue. The minister today stood in his place and said: we are going

to announce further changes to Workers' Compensation, and not only that, we are

going to tear up collective agreements again. We are going to take away benefits

that have been given, not through Workers. It is going to be announced as one

package, the minister said. He is going to take away rights that had been gotten

through the collective bargaining process.

That is terrible. The Minister of Labour, to stand in his

place, and to support this kind of activity. The minister has also not made it

clear to us, and we are quite anxious to see how it is going to perform, how he

is going to do it, the proposal, and we have every indication that the majority

report of 75 per cent benefits will be accepted. The question is: what about

people who have made long-term financial commitments, based on the fact that

they were getting 90 per cent of net, plus a 10 per cent top-up? Or even 90 per

cent of their net, forgetting the 10 per cent? What about these people? Are they

now going to fall into the category of reduced and lowered benefits?

Because it is time for the minister - he has had this report

for months now - to let injured workers know, because some of them perhaps today

are taking on increased financial risk, based on the fact that they thought they

were going to be entitled to certain benefits. When the minister stands, as I

know he will, because I saw him making some notes, and he refuses to stand after

we have one speaker, it is a little game that they have played lately on the

other side. They want to play politics with a serious issue, and they want to

get our two speakers up first so we can have no rebuttal to what the minister

says. We know that is the game that they are playing. But we will let the

minister go on and rant and rave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to

rise and address the petition for a few brief minutes. I point out to all hon.

members with respect to some of the comments made by the two previous speakers

that before I deal particularly with the content of the petition that there are

a couple of things that the hon. members shouldn't try to propose that I have

said certain things that I haven't said. What I have said is that we have the

matters under review in totality and that at a point in time we will announce as

a total package all of the changes. There have been no announcements made. So

for the hon. the Member for Fogo to get up and say that I have said that we are

going to do something with collective agreements with regard to top-up and so

on, that is an incorrect statement. I have said that that issue is being dealt

with along with all of the others, and we will make an announcement as to how

that will be handled along with all the rest.

The other point as well, Mr. Speaker, that I might point out,

and it is important. The hon. Member for Fogo indicated in his representation in

support of the petition, he said the workers compensation system operates on

instructions from government. Now he should know, if he doesn't, if that is how

the previous administration tried to run workers compensation, maybe that is a

large reason why it is in the mess it is in. This government has not done that.

We have recognized the integrity and autonomy of the workers compensation

system. We have appointed the board, and we are doing now what the previous

administration failed to do. We are going to take action upon the

recommendations submitted by the five year statutory review which was submitted

to the previous administration, and the major considerations with respect to

benefits and all other things in terms of duration of claim they did absolutely

nothing about.

The hon. Member for Humber East in her presentation and

representation of the petition, Mr. Speaker, talks about the changes in the

hospital sector from 85 to 89. I might point out for all hon. members that

during the period from 85 to 89 when these things started to develop, the

previous administration was in office. That whole issue was brought forward in

the previous statutory review that these things were occurring, and they did

nothing about it. Now it has worsened since, and we admit that. We know that and

we are going to announce what we are going to do about it very shortly, as soon

as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, back to the thrust of the petition, because it

is serious. The petition, as I understand it, having not seen it but having

heard it read, is that these petitioners, these injured workers - and I agree

with the presenter of the petition that nobody I know of went out and got

injured because they wanted to or tried to. They were working, providing a

valuable service. They have been unfortunately injured, and they deserve to be

compensated to the greatest level that the compensation system can afford. The

petition, as I understand it, calls upon the government to try to minimize any

decrease in benefits for these workers. We support that petition because in all

our deliberations that is exactly what we are attempting to do in our current

deliberations, to absolutely minimize the impact on the injured worker.

However, Mr. Speaker, in the context that everybody

understands that the fund has been on an annual basis expending more than it

takes in. Costs are increasing by in excess of 20 per cent a year even though

the number of new claimants has been decreasing in the last couple of years. The

duration of claims is increasing. There are problems with medical access. We

acknowledge that, and we will be announcing what we can do about it in the very

near future. The commission has gotten into the unenviable position of dipping

into investment funds to meet current year expenditures to the point that

somewhere between 1996 and 2003 there will not be one penny left to pay any

injured worker in Newfoundland anything. Now with that extreme, between

recognizing that they now have a 90 per cent of net benefit verses in four years

they will have nothing to worry about period, we are trying to make decisions

that are in the same light that petition recommends.

We are considering every possibility to minimize the negative

impact on those unfortunate injured workers. We are doing that. That is a very

serious part of our deliberations. But at the same time, we are going to make

decisions that are in the control of this government to make and we will give

direction in our one time in five years, which we are entitled to do, to the

commission to say that the law will change -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - to try and preserve the workers'

compensation system so that all injured workers will continue to receive a

benefit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Before moving off from petitions, the Chair feels it an

obligation again to point out to hon. members the requirements of our Standing

Orders with respect to petitions. The Chair doesn't like doing this all the

time, but hon. members will know that it is the Chair's duty to see that our

Standing Orders, as much as possible, are followed. We are getting to a position

where more and more petitions are not at all falling in line with our Standing

Orders or the Standing Orders of the House of Commons Beauchesne.

The petition that we had today was no different. It wasn't

addressed to anybody, either to government or to the House and it didn't contain

a prayer. I point this out to hon. members. As I said, it would be much easier

for the Chair if members were following the rules.

I know that we have allowed some laxity but, again, I point

out Beauchesne, page 281, 1045 which says, "It is the duty of Members to read

petitions which are sent to them before they are presented and, if they observe

any irregularity, to return them to the petitioners."

The Chair didn't make the rules. The Chair's job is to

interpret and enforce them. The job of members is to follow them. If hon.

members think that our rules are not appropriate for petitions, then they should

change them. But as long as they are the way they are - and a petition is a

time-honoured tradition of the British Parliamentary system, but everywhere it

follows a rule. One of the fundamental rules of a petition is that it have a

prayer and not that it have accusations and all kinds of other things which

encourage debate.

I think the petition today went very well, particularly in

view of the kind of language that was in it, because it was debatable. A

petition is not meant to be debatable. I bring it to the attention of hon.

members again and, for their guidance, the Chair can only follow the rules. I

have asked hon. members, as well, that if they think a petition is not in order

that:

(1). They should bring it to the attention of the Clerk of

the House; or

(2). Bring it to the attention of the House before presenting

the petition.

I ask hon. members, please, to co-operate with the Chair in

that regard. The Chair doesn't like doing it, but again the Chair has to follow

the rules to try to enforce the rules as much as the Chair has the ability and

the knowledge to do so.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act." (Bill

No. 30)

On motion, Bill No. 30 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, the Concurrence Motion.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to take

part in this Concurrence Debate focusing on

the Estimates of the five departments which were earlier referred to the Social

Services Estimates Committee. They are the five departments that are generally

grouped under the social heading, the Departments of Health, Education, Social

Services, Justice, as well as Environment and Lands. These departments together

spend about two-thirds of the proposed Budget for this year with Health being

the largest-spending department.

The Estimates Committee had seven meetings to examine the

Estimates of these departments, one each for all five and a second meeting for

three of the departments.

I think the Estimates Committee proceedings were generally

satisfactory inasmuch as members of the Committee had an opportunity to ask

detailed questions. Ministers and their officials were generally co-operative.

The only disappointment that I can note is that the news media didn't provide

consistent coverage. Perhaps the fact that there are three House Estimates

Committees functioning roughly at the same time while the whole House is in

session makes it impossible for very many news organizations to have reporters

present at each proceeding.

At any rate, whatever the reason, over the past few years

there has been less and less media presence at our Estimates Committee

proceedings. Many of the members participating in the Committee proceedings have

found that the Committee discussions tend to be more satisfying than debate in

the whole House. At the Committee meetings there are meaningful exchanges for

the most part,with members asking questions and ministers answering them. Rather

than dwelling on the details of departmental estimates, for the most part the

discussion is concentrated on large policy questions.

In our deliberations of the social departments' spending

proposals, we noted that there are serious social problems in our Province,

problems that have been made worse by the economic recession. For example, Mr.

Speaker, over the past three years, coinciding with the time in office of this

administration, the number of people in this Province on social assistance has

just about doubled.

MR. REID: No.

MS. VERGE: That is quite a shocking statistic. The Member

for Carbonear seems to have problems accepting that fact but the Minister of

Social Services who is now in his seat confirmed the fact when I pointed out the

arithmetic to him in our Committee meeting, that there has virtually been a

doubling of the number of people in this Province on welfare over the past three

years.

According to the present administration's first Minister of

Social Services, the Member for Port de Grave, when I asked him about the social

assistance caseload in the spring of 1989, in March 1989, the so-called

caseload, or the number of family units on welfare in March 1989 was something

over 19,000. The present minister told us that in March of this year, exactly

three years later, the caseload had risen to over 28,000. That is an increase of

just about 50 per cent, I say to the Member for Carbonear.

Now, at the same time as government has watched such a

shocking rise in the welfare caseload, with government planning to spend a

record amount of money on welfare this year, the government is forecasting a

decrease in spending on employment programs, specifically targeted for social

assistance recipients and also employment projects for others in the population.

In the Estimates of the Department of Social Services, there is markedly less

budgeted for employment programs this year than was spent last year. In the case

of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, there is significantly

less budgeted to be spent this year on employment programs than was actually

spent last year.

Mr. Speaker, to many of these, that is crazy. It doesn't make

any sense at all to plan to spend more for welfare, to plan to send out cheques

to more and more people who are at home, able to work, wanting to work, when, at

the same time, the government is cutting back on its effort to fund employment

projects.

Now, the members opposite, the Premier, in particular, have

consistently ridiculed and dismissed the Community Development Program of the

Department of Social Services. That is an employment creation program for social

assistance recipients. But in my experience as the Member for Humber East, that

Community Development Program, in the Corner Brook area, and in the Western

region generally, has been quite beneficial. Through that program over the

years, funding has been given to such sponsoring agencies as: municipalities,

the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, other community organizations, school boards, I

believe, in some cases, businesses. Other projects have been operated directly

by the department and, in the process, hundreds of people have been employed.

Many of them have gone on to stay in the work force and useful activities have

been carried out.

The V O N is an example, the Victorian Order of Nurses. The V

O N in Corner Brook over the years has received funding under the Community

Development Program for several employment projects. One recent project has

involved training. That is for home health workers, or home health aides.

Another project has involved the provision of housekeeping for elderly people

who cannot quite manage all household duties and chores on their own because of

deteriorating health. Incidentally, the assistance of these elderly people

through the Community Development Program is consistent with the social goal of

helping elderly people stay in their own homes and function on their own as long

as possible, so that they don't have to go to institutions. There have been a

couple of other useful Community Development projects sponsored by the V O N in

the Corner Brook area.

So, in examining the Estimates of the Department of Social

Services, it was very disappointing for us to see that the government is

planning to pay more people than ever before, virtually twice as many as three

years ago, when this administration took office, in straight welfare, while

spending significantly less on employment projects.

Now, the only answer the Minister of Social Services could

suggest is that maybe partway through the year, the government will increase

funding for employment projects. But that really isn't good enough. This is the

spring, this is the peak time for many types of work activities in the Province.

It is the start of our short construction season. This is the time the

government should be making a greater effort than ever to fund employment

projects for people on social assistance.

We now have 60,000 individuals in this Province collecting

welfare. Some of those people can't work, but many of them can, and want to

work. Many of those people are quite able to hold down a job, and they would

certainly feel much better about themselves if they could do something useful.

They have a lot to contribute to society. But right now there aren't enough jobs

to go around. The number of jobs in this Province has shrunk over the last three

years. The unemployment rate has risen. As I have said, the number of people on

welfare has virtually doubled.

Another indicator of the extent of our social problems is the

number of people in our jails. Occupancy in the adult correctional centres, Her

Majesty's Penitentiary, here in St. John's, the adult correctional centres in

Clarenville, Bishop's Falls, Stephenville, and Happy Valley - Goose Bay, is

higher than ever.

We were told in the Estimates Committee meetings that there

is something like one-third more than full occupancy in our adult correctional

centres. We were told that, in some cases, three inmates are sharing a room or a

cell designed for two inmates. We were assured that there is no breach of fire

or safety regulations; nevertheless, we were told that there are more people in

our adult correctional centres than ever before.

MR. SPEAKER: We are following the ten minutes.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the

opportunity to speak in this debate.

The Member for Humber East, of course, raises some very

current points in her remarks, in that we have been discussing now, over the

last few weeks, social services and the numbers of people who are accessing

areas of social services - all the various categories. Of course, it is a sign

of the economic times we are in, the difficulties with the economy, great

difficulties with the economy not just, of course, in Newfoundland and Labrador

but right across the country. I suppose you could say both countries, really,

are in a deep recession, having great difficulty. Of course, whatever difficulty

Canada, as a whole, has, it is always exaggerated and greater in Newfoundland,

for many reasons.

As we go through these difficult times, particularly in this

Province now, where we have great difficulties with our most important resource,

I think it is safe to say, the fishery - we have depended on it for centuries as

our prime source of employment. Now that we are having such great difficulty

with the fishery, until we come to grips with and solve the problems related to

the fishery, it is going to be very, very difficult to control the expenditure

that we are having and continue to have, a growing expenditure in social

services.

Those members who represent rural districts, and districts

that are on the coastline of the Province and have communities in their

districts that are fishing communities and depend on the fishery, in some cases

- in many cases, of course, we have communities where that is the sole source of

employment; any employment that is there is in the fishery.

We will see, if problems continue as they are now, with the

offshore, in particular, with the lack of fish, the problem with foreign

overfishing, many of these communities will have very difficult times. Many of

them are having a difficult time right now.

Mr. Speaker, we have programs in place, federal and

provincial programs of income assistance which are overlapping and supportive of

one another, very difficult and confusing to administer by both the federal and

provincial governments, and I am not just speaking of Newfoundland, but every

province is having difficulty coming to grips with income security and the

problem we have of trying to provide a base of income for particularly those

people who are in a situation where they are on long-term assistance and with

very little opportunity for work.

That category of person, Mr. Speaker, is a category, of

course, in Newfoundland, in particular, that with the fishery, itself, and the

seasonal nature of it in many parts of the Province where a limited amount of

income is derived from the fishery, the reliance on Social Assistance and UIC

payments and available work through federal and provincial programs on a

short-term basis in many respects, the combination of all those sources of

income, Mr. Speaker, is a very difficult area of concern. And we are attempting

to come to grips with it - I speak of both the federal and provincial

governments in this context - attempting to come to grips with it, trying to

find a way, Mr. Speaker, to simplify and come up with an income base, a security

base that our people can be assured of,

whereas now we have a very confusing

system which doesn't provide the needed incentive that our people should have,

and certainly doesn't address the problem as it should be addressed. It is a

difficult one, Mr. Speaker, to administer and difficult to come to grips with

the real problem.

We know, of course, that it is not just a matter of creating

employment per se because governments can't really create jobs and create

industry and create business and employment. The best government can do is to

set the environment and make sure that the conditions are such that business and

industry are attracted to a particular area, are encouraged to set up whatever

type of business or industry it happens to be, usually where there is an

incentive to do it, where, obviously, there is a hope of success and profit can

be seen at the end of the road. We have to, as a government, set the environment

for those businesses and those industries to come to this Province if they are

not already here and certainly to locate in areas of the Province where those

businesses and industries are not operating right now, Mr. Speaker.

We also have the major problem of education and training with

our work force. That, of course, is the solution in the short and long term, and

trying to come to grips with the type of training and the type of education our

people should have for the future in a changing world where new industries and

new types of businesses are being formed, where there is less of a reliance on

the resource industries that we relied on in the past.

Things are changing dramatically, and the shift from the type

of education and training that we had in the past in our university, in our

community colleges and, indeed, in our private schools - we are seeing a great

change in different courses being offered than we saw in the past, and being

able to, as a government, come to grips with that, making sure that we are

providing the type of education, the types of courses that our students need,

and that people need who are displaced from work now, not able to find

employment in the fishery or in forestry or in agriculture, or whatever it

happens to be. Having those people redirected and retrained and educated in a

new field of work is a real challenge, knowing where those jobs should be, where

the training should be put in place, the types of careers that we are going to

see in the future is a real challenge, not just for this government, but for

governments across the country with such a changing economy, a changing world.

As a government, of course, I believe that to be probably our

biggest challenge, being able to come to grips with the education dilemma that

we have, the fact that educating our people - I don't think anybody would

disagree - education per se, is the real short and long-term solution to the

problems of this Province. Mr. Speaker, we are coming to grips with that. We

have made great changes in our education system.

This government has, over the last three years or so, made

tremendous changes in the education system, great improvements, Mr. Speaker, at

all levels of education, to respond to the challenges of the future, the demands

that our students have right now for education at all levels, Mr. Speaker, right

through to university, community college and private schools, that level of

education. We are responding, Mr. Speaker, but it is a long, difficult road. I

think we are on the right path. I think we will see in the future a work force

that is educated, as I mentioned, for different types of careers, different

types of work than we have seen in the past.

Mr. Speaker, until we see those changes made and see the

fruit of those changes in the education process, we will have great difficulty.

Until we see an influx and a growth of business and industry, solutions to our

economic problems and, hopefully, start moving out of this recession we are in

right now, we will have problems in providing income to our people.

The caseloads in my department, of course, as has already

been mentioned, are up dramatically. A 50 per cent increase over three years is

nothing for anybody to be proud of, but, Mr. Speaker, it is unavoidable in these

times. It is happening not just in Newfoundland. Ontario, which was always seen

as the wealthiest or certainly, one of the wealthiest provinces in the country,

is in a similar dilemma.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GULLAGE: So we have some great challenges ahead of

us, Mr. Speaker, and I believe we are responding very well to those challenges,

as a government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I wish to say a few words, too, on this particular

section of

the Estimates. I was just partially listening to the minister and I have to say

that when the Premier made a decision to move the minister from Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to Social Services, in all fairness to the Premier and all

fairness to the minister, I believe that the Premier has taken the minister from

the fat and put him into the fire. Because, Mr. Speaker, I really believe that

the minister - I said this, by the way, at the Estimates Committee about the

Minister of Environment and Lands, that the Minister of Environment and Lands,

in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is not capable of running that particular

department. Mr. Speaker, environment and lands is a very, very important issue

in our Province, and the answers that we get when we question the minister

really go to show that she hasn't got a grasp on the small and big issues that

are confronting our Province.

I know the Minister of Social Services has a very difficult

department and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that he would take the challenge. I

believe he can do it, if he wanted to accept that big challenge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Social Services - I guess I

should say to all my colleagues opposite, all the ministers, I have very, very

serious problems in my district, in the District of Torngat Mountains, as it

pertains to health, as it pertains to social services and, naturally, as it

pertains to the environment and education. I was appalled when I ask the

Minister of Education was he considering translating the Royal Commission on

Education, entitled "Our Children, Our Future", into the other official

languages in our Province, and he said: No. Now, Mr. Speaker, having a

government in our Province that refuses to translate into a mother tongue of

those children on the Coast of Labrador. I should say that there are more native

speaking children in our schools today than there are French speaking children

and I find it ironic that this government decides to translate into the French

language but not translate into the native language and I think it is a slap and

a backward step by this government in their treatment of the native people.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting today - and I guess you can't

help talking politics once in a while - but it is interesting today that the

Premier has called a by-election for the district of Naskaupi. Mr. Speaker, I

had a call a few minutes ago and a comment going around in the Goose Bay area

was that Mr. Ed. Roberts has a substantial edge, because he has his brother,

Peter, helping him.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for

Windsor - Buchans asks, What's wrong with that? I say to my hon. colleague, if

Ed. Roberts has to trust to his brother, Peter, to help him get elected, God

help the health care in Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have a candidate. Do you have a

candidate?

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from

Mount Scio - Bell Island -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: - my hon. colleague for Mount Scio - Bell

Island is interrupting me and I could say to my hon. colleague, we have many

candidates who want his seat. In fact, we have someone who will take his seat.

And what I am wondering is, does that party have a candidate yet? Now, that is

the concern that is all over Bell Island - Mount Scio, so I say to my hon.

colleague, just leave me alone and let me continue my onslaught of those

Estimates.

Some time ago, I asked the minister about the clean-up in

Kitts-Michelin and, Mr. Speaker, the minister said it is going to be done, but

what she did not say was, when. Apparently she is not putting too much pressure

on getting this clean-up done and this is why I said today on the Ministerial

Statement, I wish the minister would take some action; she makes some comments

but she takes no action. Last night we held a public forum on the environment,

where seventy or seventy-four people turned up at the CEI building. It dealt, in

particular, with the subject of the incinerator in Long Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, you should have listened to some of the comments

from those people. In fact, there were thirty or thirty-three who expressed

their concerns about this particular project. Only two were in support of the

incinerator and all the rest expressed a lot of concerns and downright

rejection. And, Mr. Speaker, I noticed that this government, with this issue so

hot, other than the Member for St. John's South, no one else has come out and

said whether they are for or against it.

Now, let me say to my hon. colleague from Eagle River, I am

not like my hon. colleague, to go and make a press release about John Crosbie or

about the fishermen's union or about the Marine Atlantic. Mr. Speaker, before I

make my press releases, I check my facts first. I say to my hon. colleague that

he should check his facts, because I have a release here from John Crosbie, that

was released today, concerning the hon. the Member for Eagle River, and, Mr.

Speaker, what does he say? What does the hon. John Crosbie say about my

colleague from Eagle River?

First, he said, he is better known as `Denny, the Dumpster',

but he also says what is most important, Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Labrador Highway

was not a priority.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), the weekend.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, he says here, and I quote: 'The

Trans-Labrador Highway, was not a priority for the provincial government several

months ago.' In fact, I never heard my hon. colleague say too much until

recently. He went on the radio, in the papers, and everything else about getting

money for the Trans-Labrador Highway. Yesterday was Private Members' Day and he

had it on the Order Paper but he would not bring it forward.

MR. DUMARESQUE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The hon. member is obviously not allowed

to mislead this House. The hon. member should know that the Opposition,

including himself, agreed yesterday for the sake of having the business of this

Province expedited they would allow Private Members' Day to deal with government

business. That was exactly what happened, Mr. Speaker, and it had nothing to do

with my intention of having, or not having, that debate yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order there is actually no

point of order. I just want to take the occasion to remind the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains that we are dealing with the Social Services Committee and

that his remarks should be relevant to that.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I think my remarks are, Mr. Speaker, because if we can get

the Trans-Labrador Highway started we are going to get people off social

services and working on this particular project. Mr. Speaker, this particular

resolution that was not debated yesterday was entirely up to the member himself

and not up to the PC Party, the Liberal Party or the NDP. If the gentleman

wanted to put the resolution forward it was his choice because it was a Private

Members' resolution so therefore, Mr. Speaker, he cannot weasel his way out of

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you agree (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, you just ordered me to stay on

the subject of social services but when my hon. colleague asks me questions not

relevant to that subject I have to continue to be involved. I say to my hon.

colleague that I do not agree with any increase that is going to hurt the

pockets of Labradorians or Newfoundlanders. I do not agree with this government

cutting out the air subsidy program. I do not agree with this government closing

down the Motor Registration Office. I tell my hon. colleague that I do not agree

with anything that government does to hurt the people of Labrador. Now, I should

ask my question to the hon. member. Does he agree -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I have been forced to stand in this House and

participate in this debate. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for

Torngat Mountains is attempting to curb the debate now that the by-election is

on in Naskaupi. It is very, very embarrassing for the hon. member to know that

his federal colleague, Mr. Crosbie, is against the giving of $7 million that has

already been allocated for the Trans-Labrador Highway, to have it put up this

year so we can get that valuable and important work done on the Trans-Labrador

Highway.

I know the member is very embarrassed that he is going to

have to go down there in Naskaupi with Mr. Crosbie, hold up his arm and say,

yes, this is the minister for Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the member who

is going to deliver the money for the Trans-Labrador Highway when in fact he

knows that his colleagues over there are all well versed on the fact that Mr.

Crosbie does not want to do this because he said he would not do it because if

he did it would only give the Liberals the opportunity to probably get 80 per

cent of the vote in Naskaupi as opposed to the 60 or 70 per cent we are already

going to get, Mr. Speaker. That is a fact and I am sure that is very

embarrassing for the hon. member. I just wanted to point that out to him.

The Social Services Estimates that we are in concurrence to

now are obviously very important to this House but I wanted to rise and set the

record straight as far as the Naskaupi situation is concerned and the

participation of the hon. member. It is usually only every four years we get a

chance to participate in elections but in this particular case we have an

opportunity to have an election in Labrador and I look forward to the next

twenty-eight days so we can go down and debate the issues of Labrador and have

people stand up and set the record straight, where they stand, and what they are

going to do for the people of Naskaupi, what they have done in the recent past

for the people of Naskaupi, and exactly why they should vote for a member of the

opposition - somebody who is going to come in here and rant and roar and

provide, I guess, a song to the people of Naskaupi, instead of supporting,

obviously, a very prominent member of this government, the hon. Ed Roberts.

I am sure that the people of Naskaupi will look to the

Minister of Justice in his portfolio, who is very much into the constitutional

debate now, trying to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador has a place in

Confederation. I am sure that the people of Naskaupi are going to be looking

forward to seeing a man of Mr. Roberts' stature and credibility taking his place

in this hon. House for the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: So I do not want to elevate it any more

partisan at this particular point. I am sure that we will have ample opportunity

to do so. I just wanted to rise on this particular occasion to make sure that

the people of this Province were not misled by anything that the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains has a tendency to do from time to time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on the

concurrency debate on the government services. I enjoyed listening to the hon.

Member for Eagle River explaining about how he looked forward to the by-election

that is going to be occurring down in Naskaupi. It should be quite interesting.

It should be very challenging for both parties, I am sure, or all three parties.

He talked about how - the word that we are getting back from

the district, he mentioned about one of the candidates being proposed, the

acting Minister of Justice, or the unelected Minister of Justice -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well the unelected Minister of Justice -

AN HON. MEMBER: Only until the twenty-fifth, around 8:30

(inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It should be. Then he will be defeated and

looking for another place. By then the counts will be in and he will be

defeated, and he will be looking for another place to run, and maybe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: Maybe if the polls are a little better in

Mount Scio he would be asked to run, but there is no way that could be

considered a safe, Liberal seat. That is for sure.

He probably would do fairly well in the polls in Naskaupi if

he were to stay out of it, but if he goes in there I would say the longer he is

in there the more votes he will lose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. A. SNOW: The parachute candidate who is going into

Naskaupi.

He has about as much charisma now as -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well undoubtedly the people of Naskaupi will

have the opportunity to vote for this tremendous candidate that they are going

to be parachuting in.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they will.

MR. A. SNOW: And they are going to be coming out in

droves to support him, and they may. They will have a choice. It is part of the

democratic process; but so far we have not seen that tremendous amount of

support for this particular candidate who has been rammed down the throats of

the people in Labrador. We are hoping that the people of Labrador and Naskaupi

are going to be able to make a decision based on who is better capable of

representing them in the House.

There is no doubt that probably if they had sent in some

other candidates from the Island they would have a bit more respect than what

the member has, because of his attitudes toward Labrador. We are hoping the

people in Labrador will see through this charade of new found support of

Labrador ideals and aspirations that the people of Labrador have today.

To continue on with the debate, and some of the discussion

that the hon. Member for Eagle River had with regard to the $7 million that was

requested by several people in Labrador, and the provincial government, that is

being allocated for funding of the Trans-Labrador Highway and proposed to be

spent next year. Some people may think that I am wavering from the topic of

debate, but I am not because I feel that could tremendously help if we were able

to talk about some of the - the economy is directly tied to Social Services and

the amount of revenue that any government has with regard to how much they can

deliver government services, or how well they can deliver government services,

whether they are in Social Services, Health care, Education, or through the

Justice Department, in police and fire protection.

Mr. Speaker, that $7 million, I agree with the hon. Member

for Eagle River, that the federal government should have decided to accelerate

the capital expenditure program and go ahead with construction in Labrador this

year. I firmly believe that, they should have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, I am not blaming anybody. I am saying I

agree that it should be done. I also firmly believe that when the First

Ministers met in Toronto back about January or February, or I believe maybe it

may have been in March, there was a general agreement amongst the First

Ministers of this country that one of the methods of stimulating the economy

would be to improve the transportation infrastructure of this whole country, and

that the federal and provincial governments of the day should strike an

agreement concerning the transportation infrastructure in all the provinces.

What they should do then is go ahead with the capital expenditure program this

year and the next three, four or five years. To improve transportation in the

whole country.

I think that any new transportation agreement that is signed

with this Province to improve the transportation infrastructure of this

Province, the number one priority should be the completion of the Trans-Labrador

Highway. Before a highway is made wider in St. John's, or made a thicker

pavement in Deer Lake or the national park, there should be a highway across

Labrador. Before there is any other consideration. Any new agreements, that

should be the priority. Total, 100 per cent of the funding, should go towards

the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway. One hundred per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you people do it? You had

seventeen years to do it! You never did a thing!

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. A. SNOW: Why? Why should it be? The hon. Minister of

Education wants to know why I believe that it should be 100 per cent of the

funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Roads-for-Rails agreement

(Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: In the - I don't know, I was not there

sitting around the Cabinet table -

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't, no, but Crosbie was there

then, (Inaudible)!

MR. A. SNOW: Now I hate getting down to the level of....

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) spend it up in Ferryland

(Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on the sidewalk (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes. I will climb down from the sidewalk and

discuss it with the hon. Member for Mount Scio, who is so low that he is below

where the water comes down from the sidewalk on the high part of the road.

MR. WINSOR: That's not the gutter you're talking about.

MR. A. SNOW: I am not even talking about the gutter. Mr.

Speaker, from the Roads-for-Rails agreement I believe that there was some $27

million allocated for spending on the Trans-Labrador Highway, $27 million, I

think it was. The hon. members on the other side suggested there was no money,

but there was $27 million. Now that was not enough, but it did go towards

completing the Trans-Labrador Highway from western Labrador to Churchill Falls.

That, combined with the initial $16 million brought in by the special recovery

program in 1983, plus a further, I think it was $16 million or $17 million

through an earlier agreement, completed that highway with several bridges on the

other part of the road, the eastern part of the road, if you want to call it,

from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley - Goose Bay. So there was a commitment -

albeit it was not large enough - from the previous administration. Now that the

hon. Member for Mount Scio understands the historical portion of what has

occurred I will let him sit back and muse for a while.

Now what I said was that any new transportation agreements

that this Province enters into with the federal government, 100 per cent of the

funding for transportation should be spent on the Trans-Labrador Highway. The

Minister of Education said that it should not be, that we should not spend all

the money on the Trans-Labrador Highway. I do not know why the Minister of

Education is continuously attacking the people of Labrador in particular. He

wants to spend more money - I suppose he is being parochial and wants to spend

some money in St. John's North. He wants to have wider roads in St. John's

North. But I think that if this government accepted its proper responsibility

and did not run around on their hobbyhorse of Triple E and reform of national

institutions, those things -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The Triple E Senate. The new medicine that

is going to cure the complete economic ills of this Province, Mr. Speaker. The

one that the Premier articulates and the unelected Minister of Justice suggests

is going to cure the complete economic ills of this Province. We are not going

to have any problems in the fishery any more. Development is going to be

absolutely booming. All we have to do is get a Triple E Senate. I tell you, the

Province will have complete employment. Education is going to be cheaper, it is

going to be better, there are going to be more scholars out there, more scholars

for the dollar, as the minister suggests all the time. As soon as we get a

Triple E Senate.

Now, we are not going to do anything else with the economy.

We are not going to try and improve the workplace where people get injured and

lose their lives at jobs. In a lot of cases, though, not just lose their lives.

Specifically, I listened with a little bit of sadness today when I heard a

former labour leader in this Province, the now Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, talk about how he is going to attempt to solve the economic problems

of this Province on the backs of injured workers. Instead of saying, look, if

all these people getting injured on the job - and there are a tremendous number

of people in the health care sector who have back injuries. What we are saying

is we are going to cut down their benefits. So in a backhanded way what the

minister of employment is suggesting is occurring is they are blaming the

employee for having these injuries

whereas in point of fact, what should occur

if all these injuries are occurring in the workplace, the government and Workers

Compensation, the employers should be spending more money in the workplace to

design probably the beds - that is what should be looked at - that these nurses

are lifting, and I would suspect what they are lifting is patients. So they need

to look at the workplace, not the workers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, that is what should be done.

Instead of attempting to solve the economic woes of the Province on the backs of

injured workers they should be looking at what is causing these accidents. Is it

because the injured workers want to be off work? Is it because they want to have

operations on their backs, their shoulders, or their legs? No it is not, Mr.

Speaker. It is because, I would suspect, they are doing an awful lot of lifting

of weights that they shouldn't be. Maybe if more money had been spent in

educating and looking at new methods of lifting patients and transporting

patients from wheelchairs or stretchers to the bed or conversely from the bed

out to wheelchairs and stretchers. That is where they are injuring themselves.

So what do we do? We don't go out and educate in the workforce and tell

employers that they should have new tools to assist people in lifting these

patients. We say no, what we are going to do is penalize the workers. We blame

it on the workers. That is what is occurring, and that is tremendously unfair.

Mr. Speaker, this unfairness that comes out time and time

again, whether it is unfairness to the person who gets injured in the workplace,

or whether it is the unfairness of the huge tax increases that the Minister of

Finance and the Minister of Education has imposed on people in my district so

that people can't afford to send their children to get post-secondary education

anymore, Mr. Speaker, because of the tax dollars that these money grabbers are

sticking their slimy, grimy little hands in their pockets and stealing their

money. They are taking their money and now they can't afford to educate their

children. That is the unfairness that I am speaking about, Mr. Speaker. Or

whether it is cutting back on the services of the people who are able bodied and

yet can't find work and don't have unemployment insurance available to them, and

they expect an able bodied young person to live on $129 a month.

That is the unfairness I am speaking about. That is the

hallmark of this government. These types of unfairness, Mr. Speaker, that has no

compassion to the ordinary person whether that ordinary person is on social

assistance, is an injured worker or an over taxed individual, they have no

compassion towards them. They sit in their big office, they tour the Province in

their big $8,000 a year travel allowances, the limousines, the big long

limousines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: And we look at a place like western Labrador

which produces a tremendous amount of wealth. It produces more wealth per capita

than any other district, and we can't get a residential job!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat. I want to

inform the House of the questions for the Late Show.

Number 1. I am not satisfied with the answers given today to

my questions, re the incinerator, and I wish to debate the issue on the Late

Show - the hon. Member for Torngat - Mountains.

Number 2. I am not satisfied by the answer given by the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, in response to my question on the

Workers Compensation Board - the hon. Member for Fogo.

Number 3. I am not satisfied with the answer given to my

question by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture on May 25th - the hon.

Member for Green Bay.

Does the hon. member have leave to continue?

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a minute to

conclude, then the hon. Minister of Health can get up and explain why the people

in western Labrador had to do with such cutbacks and tolerate such cutbacks in

our health care system.

People who pay so much through their taxes, they pay more per

capita than anywhere else in this Province and yet, this administration saw fit

to cut back over a million dollars over the last two years and, Mr. Speaker,

losing a million dollars on this was, I guess probably about a 15 per cent

reduction in the amount of monies allotted or budgeted towards the hospital, The

Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in western Labrador, and this

government did not recognize the geographical location of western Labrador and

the problems associated with operating a hospital in northern Labrador, and with

people who cannot afford to come out here to get special services that have been

cut out in western Labrador and it is unfortunate that this government's

hallmarks are, no compassion for the ordinary people such as I have in my

district, and they are going to show that, Mr. Speaker, at the polls next time.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Estimates Committee for the

social sector of the government, dealt with the Department of Health budget,

$880 million, Mr. Speaker, the most money in the history of this Province or

country, when we were a country. Never before was so much money spent in

delivering health care in this Province. $880 million, to deliver to our people

in Labrador West or Nain or the northern Peninsula or the Burin Peninsula,

health care services in keeping with the Medicare Act, universal medicare which

was brought in by the Liberal administration back in the 1960s, Mr. Speaker,

which is indeed a health care system which is the envy of the whole world. There

is not a better health care system on the face of this earth, than we have in

Newfoundland and Labrador and in the Dominion of Canada today, Mr. Speaker.

Canada has a great health care system and as the Globe and

Mail says over and over in almost every issue, Newfoundland has one of the best

health care systems in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, medicare is under a tremendous

attack these days. Medicare is under attack by the users of the system who

sometimes confuse their wants with their needs. Medicare is under attack, Mr.

Speaker, by the stakeholders in the system who sometimes do not see beyond their

personal interest to the overall good of everybody. Medicare is under attack by

the health care system itself, Mr. Speaker. But the biggest attack of all that

medicare is under, is the one which is being levied by the first cousins of hon.

members opposite, since the 1980s, when the government in Ottawa changed to the

right wing dinosaurs of the Tory movement, they have wanted to abolish universal

medicare, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I said earlier that during this committee meeting, we

dealt with the budget for the Department of Health which is $880 million. Since

the Tories took office in Ottawa they started to downgrade the amount of money

that they send into Newfoundland and Labrador to help us deliver health care to

our people. That comes under the established program financing, Mr. Speaker.

Part of that goes to Education and part of it goes to Health. Does anyone want

to guess the figure that we have lost as a result of Tory actions in Ottawa

since 1985? Anyone wish to guess?

AN HON. MEMBER: $1 or $2 million?

MR. DECKER: $1 or $2 million. I have $50 million. $5

million.

Mr. Speaker, $800 million. That is the amount of money that

this Province has lost as a result of the right wing, pro American Tory

government that we have in Ottawa today. We have lost $800 million in transfer

payments directly related to the payment of health care and education, Mr.

Speaker. We have lost enough money since 1985 to pay one full year of the total

budget of the Department of Health. People in this Province wonder why we had to

do some of the things we had to do over the past couple of years. By the year

1995 the province of Quebec will not be receiving a solitary cent from Ottawa to

help with their health care system. By 1997 Saskatchewan will not be receiving a

cent, or Manitoba. By 1998, Mr. Speaker, some of the other provinces will be cut

off and by the year 2003 or 2004, somewhere in that area, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador will not be receiving a single solitary cent from

Ottawa to help us deliver our health care system in this Province.

That is was has happened since the 1980s when the first

cousins of this Opposition took power in Ottawa. That was one of the attacks

that Medicare has come under in this Province. The other attack which this

health care system has come under is probably best noted when I borrow a phrase

from Broadfoot's book, 'Ten Lost Years.' In addition to the attack on Medicare

from their federal Tory cousins we also went through ten lost years in the

history of this Province when the Province was without government. Twice in our

history, Mr. Speaker, we have gone without government. We had a Commission of

Government in for a number of years. How many years? Twenty-odd years. Then we

had ten years when that administration over there sat in the office of

government but did not govern.

The Province was left drifting in the wind with no direction

whatsoever. There was no attempt to organize the health care system. They build

roads based on whose district they were in. They build hospitals based on whose

district they could build them in. There was no planning. Nobody saw the overall

view. Ten lost years in the history of this Province. Is it any wonder that the

people of this Province finally came to their senses and turfed the Opposition

out - they can stay over there forever and I wish them well. It is a good place

for them, Mr. Speaker. I tell them their numbers are going to be diminished when

we go back to the polls again. Their numbers will certainly be diminished but

that is the best place for them. Now, these ten lost years made a tremendous

attack on the Medicare system in this Province so when we took over we had to

start doing a lot of things, Mr. Speaker. The first thing we had to look at was

the mess that they had created in the health care system. We saw where they went

down to Marystown and built a hospital. In that hospital they had beds which

they were unable to open because they were wasting money in St. Lawrence and in

Grand Bank, because that was one of their own Tory districts. At the same time,

they were closing out hospitals in Liberal districts. Can you imagine running a

health care system based on politics? If we were to do that we would not be able

to sleep at night. We would not be able to look at ourselves in the mirror for

shame, if we were running a health care system based on politics. The rashest,

sleaziest, muddiest kind of politics determined where hospitals were going to be

in this Province. These were the decisions that were made - totally, totally

unacceptable to a civilization that we have come to cherish over the years.

All of these things were attacking a universal health care

system in this Province. So when we started, when we took over, one of the first

things we had to do was make a conscious decision to take politics out of the

health care system, take politics out of government, take patronage out of

government, take petty, sleazy politics out of government.

I believe that is one of the reasons why we are up in excess

of 70 per cent in the polls today, because I believe the people of this Province

do not want us to determine where we are going to build our hospitals, based on

politics. They want a rational, reasonable approach as to why we are doing

things. That is why nearly all of the people of this Province today who have

made up their minds have said that they would vote to put this administration

back in power for another fifteen or twenty years. I believe that is why they

are saying it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Opposition are making

fools of themselves. Maybe that does have some bearing on it, but I believe it

is because the people are ready for a government based on fairness and balance,

in which we have taken politics out of our health care system.

MR. FUREY: They couldn't provide good government, and

they can't provide good opposition.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as my friend from St. Barbe

points out, we had ten lost years with no government, ten lost years where the

people just filled the seats and did nothing. Now, that was bad enough, but I

believe we have found something worse, because just as important as the

government side of the House is the Opposition side of the House. Good

government requires a good Opposition. We don't have an Opposition provided by

the largest Opposition Party today. That is our problem. The Tories are not

providing the opposition that they should. I want to tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador not to despair,though, because they only have elected

one NDP member to this House - only one - but I can tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador proudly that that hon. member, albeit it is just

himself, is providing a better Opposition for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador today than all the Tory backbenchers and front benchers put together.

That is the reality, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: That is why - when there is a Ministerial

Statement made in this House, and the Opposition get an opportunity to respond

to it but the hon. Member for St. John's East must have leave in order to

respond - that is why I am always one of the first on my feet to say that the

Member for St. John's East has the right to stand up and speak whenever there is

a Ministerial Statement made. I believe that.

You know something else, Mr. Speaker? From now on - I do not

know if I have always been doing this - but from now on I am going to tell the

hon. member that when I bring a Ministerial Statement to this House,I am going

to make sure that he receives a copy of it at the same time that the Official

Opposition receives a copy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: The real opposition.

MR. DECKER: - The real opposition.

I am not saying that because I am any great friends with the

man, the person who fills that position. That has nothing to do with it; but I

have a great respect for the democratic system as we know it. I have great

respect for the role of government and the role of Opposition. That is why, out

of concern for my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who require -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. DECKER: A minute? Not a minute to clue up? No, Mr.

Speaker, he will not even give me a minute to clue up. Doesn't that show ...?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. DECKER: How about the real Opposition? The real

Opposition gives leave, you will notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: The real Opposition gave leave.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't let this day

go by - the Premier had planned to do this a little earlier, but I can't let the

day go by without saying a few words about Charles J. Power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: This is the last day that Charlie will be

sitting in this

section of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BAKER: He has submitted his resignation to take

effect tomorrow.

Charlie got into politics in 1975, and during his political

career he has been through some interesting times, to say the least. Not the

least interesting was the way he got started on his political career in terms of

his perseverance in getting a seat in the House of Assembly. He became

parliamentary assistant to Frank Moores in his last year in office, and that, in

itself, must have been quite a trying and interesting experience.

After the election in 1979, he was put into Cabinet and

became the Minister of the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. As a

new minister, he learned the ropes for one year in that job. Then, he was moved

to a new job that for him, I suppose, became exceptionally interesting because

during that time there were some rather notable problems in the forests of the

Province in the late 70's, and he was brought in as Minister of the Department

of Forest Resources and Lands in 1980. Those must have been stressful times. I

know there were many budding politicians who were yapping at his heels over the

spruce budworm, and he had to respond to planes crashing with loads of

pesticides, and so on. As a young man and a new minister, he handled his job

exceptionally well. As a matter of fact, the first time I saw him, I didn't

realize it was Charlie Power. He looked like someone from high school. I was a

teacher at the time. He was so young looking, and yet so very competent.

AN HON. MEMBER: He still is.

MR. BAKER: He also was made Minister responsible for the

Status of Women. That was back in 1986, and I believe he handed over the reins

in 1988 to the now Leader of the Opposition.

A great challenge came his way in 1984, when a new department

was formed. That Department of Career Development and Advanced Studies - it says

here 1984, but I thought is was a little later than that, 1985, maybe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, late 84. This new department was the

result of a change in focus by the government. It was a very high profile

department and considered very, very important in the government of the Province

and by the people of the Province. He served in that capacity until 1988, when

he was moved to the Department of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development,

where he faced another tremendous challenge.

Charlie's career has been full of challenges, but he has

carried it off with a great deal of flare and an obvious joy in what he was

doing. That has always shone through in everything he did. Anybody, I suppose,

who gets involved in public life, sticks his neck out, and that is something

everybody has to accept and it is something that people generally don't realize,

that it is a difficult thing to do. Charlie has taken on all his

responsibilities, he has done them with flare, done them with a great deal of

good humour and common sense, and we all appreciate that. I am sure the people

of the Province appreciate what he has contributed to the Province in the last

seventeen years. We wish him very well in his new career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to take this

opportunity to make a few remarks. Charles Power and I entered this arena at the

same time, September of 1975. We are, I believe, the two granddaddies left in

the Chamber. I don't know if anybody else was elected in 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: 'John'.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Carter, Mr. Carter, I am sorry. The

Minister of Fisheries was, but he took a brief vacation and went on to other

things in-between. But he certainly was here before that time. He was here in

1972, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, I first met Mr. Power during the election

campaign of 1975, on a Sunday, when a motorcade was being held in his riding as

part of his campaign. I and some of my campaign workers went down to participate

in the motorcade and to offer some support to this new candidate, I being a new

candidate. We had never met. I recall arriving in Ferryland at the appointed

hour of 2:00 or whatever on a Sunday afternoon, matching up with this motorcade.

Charles came walking down to see who was there and he saw all these new cars

that he didn't recognise, because everybody knows every car on the Southern

Shore. There were, I think, thirteen carloads of us that came from Mount Pearl,

thirteen carloads of my support workers who went down, because we couldn't do

anything in Mount Pearl on a Sunday afternoon, but you could do it on the

Southern Shore. We were so full of enthusiasm, we went down.

I remember Charlie walked up to the door, looked and he said:

'You look familiar.' So I introduced myself to him. We became friends at that

point in time. In fact, it was only a couple of weeks later that we actually

attended our first caucus meeting together. I recall very vividly, Charlie came

to pick me up in Mount Pearl, in his white Lincoln. In those days, you see, we

had a few dollars. That soon changed once we got into politics. But I recall him

picking me up in his white Lincoln and we came in and went to what was the

former Cabinet room on the eighth floor and attended our first caucus meeting,

both of us somewhat awestruck at some of the people who were there - Frank

Moores, Bob Wells, Bill Marshall, Alec Hickman, Tom Farrell - some of these

people who were political institutions, very powerful, well-known, very capable

politicians who served this Province well.

Charlie and I, being young - I was thirty and Charlie, I

believe, was twenty-six. So we were quite young at that age. A lot of younger

men and women have joined politics since. But we were relatively young for

getting into the political game in those days. We walked into that room and it

was quite an experience for the two of us to walk in there.

As I said, we became friends and we have been friends, as

well as colleagues, I think, ever since. We have socialized together. About the

same time, Mr. Goudie was elected in Labrador. The three of us were somewhat The

Three Musketeers of the PC caucus for a long period of time. When we all three

eventually got into Cabinet we were in resource departments. The three of us

worked very closely, and Mr. Dawe, as well, a former Member for St. George's,

was another one of our group. We had many occasions to work closely together, to

travel together, and to socialize together.

I remember some of the Mockey games that we played over the

years. I remember one time Mr. Power and I and our families actually travelled

to Botwood and to Springdale one particular weekend that we had a series of

Mockey games set up. It was Lewisporte, actually. It was Botwood and Lewisporte

that we travelled and played Mockey games. That was quite an experience too, in

some of these things. I have some of the photographs home, in fact, of back in

those days. In fact, I came across one that I took on the day that we first took

our seats in the House of Assembly. In those days you didn't walk in as we are

dressed now. You all wore tuxedos - or tails, generally, but at least a tuxedo.

I think it was the only time I ever was dressed in tails. And I have to say, Mr.

Power looked more like a penguin that day than any penguin I have ever seen. You

have to realise, in those days he had a set of glasses that were so thick that

his eyes looked like a guppie, I have to tell you. They were at least half an

inch thick. He is almost clinically blind, I think. I don't know how thick his

contacts are.

When I looked at that photograph,