May 22,

1992 HOUSE OF

ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 42

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is a pleasure for me this morning to bring to the

attention of hon. members the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of the

Ambassador of Hungary to Canada, His Excellency Dr. Kalman Kulcsar, accompanied

by his wife, Elizabeth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to follow up on

a question with the Minister of Health. After the Minister's statements of

yesterday regarding heart patients in this Province, I believe he has been

compared, by the media today, to Dan Quayle.

In the minister's interview yesterday with the media, he made

the statement that anyone on a waiting list for heart or bypass surgery for a

fifty-two week period - and I, myself, heard him say this - that he would

question whether or not they should be there on that waiting list in the first

place, whether or not surgery was necessary.

Isn't the minister aware that in order to get on a waiting

list for heart surgery, these people have to be seen locally by their own

physicians first and referred to specialists at the hospital? Does the minister

think that this is a situation like Canadian Tire where you walk in and take a

number? Isn't he aware of that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if I am compared to Dan Quayle,

the hon. member reminds me of Stormin' Norman this morning. I don't know what he

has been doing overnight. Waiting lists are not a simple matter. As a matter of

fact, one of the things which the General Hospital is doing, as I tried to

explain to the hon. member - but it is extremely difficult, you know, to get the

truth out when there are so many people with other agendas. The media want to

sensationalize, the Opposition want to make political points, and it is so

difficult to get the truth out of that.

The truth is, though, Mr. Speaker, that on the waiting list

for various kinds of heart surgery - not all open-heart surgery either - don't

be confused that all the people on the waiting list are going to have open-heart

surgery. There are various kinds of valve replacements. There is a whole list of

things which could be done. Many of them are determined by physicians - not by

me; I'm not a physician - and many of them are determined to be elective.

I tell the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that there are people on

the waiting list in excess of three years. I also tell the hon. gentleman that

some people have been phoned at various times and have been told there is a bed

available, and the person said: 'Well, I really can't take it today, maybe I'll

put it off for a little longer.' So it is not all a matter of the hospital

system. In some cases, the people, themselves, are going about a normal life,

and they are questioning it. So one of the things the hospital is doing in an

attempt to deal with this problem, is 'culling'. The word is not mine. It is the

word used by the administration at the General Hospital. They are culling the

waiting list to reassess the people who are on it and see just what is going on.

At the risk of being the callous, cold-blooded person that I

have been accused of being, there is a possibility that some of those people

might have died for other reasons, or they might have died because of their

heart problems. So the whole matter of the waiting list is one that I would tell

hon. member not to get too excited about, not to make too many political points

about. The reality is that the hospital is culling the list to see just what is

going on, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not

answer the question. Now I am going to give him another opportunity to answer

it, because I am going to ask it again. Did the minister make the statement

yesterday, or did he not make the statement yesterday, that people who are on a

waiting list for fifty-two weeks for heart surgery, bypass surgeries and what

have you, that he would question whether or not these people should be on that

waiting list in the first place? Did he or did he not make that statement?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to refer the hon. member

to Hansard, or if he is asking the same question I am going to have to give him

the same answer.

The answer is, as I outlined to the hon. member, that there

is a waiting list which is somewhere between ninety and one hundred people.

There are people on that waiting list who have been there in excess of three

years. The administration at the General Hospital said, 'Surely goodness, if

there are people on a list in excess of three years, we are going to go back and

talk to these people, talk to their physicians, and see just what is going on,

and see if it is an accurate waiting list or not.'

Now, if the hon. member wants to read the rest of the answer,

which I thought was a good one, I would suggest that later on today Hansard will

be printed, and he can sit down and read the answer to the question, then he

might be able to understand it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me set the minister straight.

He did not make that statement in the House. He made it on tape with the media

of this Province yesterday, and they have the tapes to prove it.

Now, is the minister not aware that people have been on a

waiting list for heart surgery for so long, they have experienced such severe

damage to heart tissue that surgery was no longer possible? And the minister

then has the gall and the audacity to make such callous statements as that there

are people on the waiting list who should not even be there. Is he not aware of

that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, tapes or no tapes, media or no

media, Stormin' Norman or no Stormin' Norman, the reality is this: As I have

said repeatedly over the last few hours, over the last few days, there is a

waiting list of somewhere between ninety and one hundred people. The

administration at the General Hospital discovered that there were people out in

excess of three years.

Now, among other initiatives that the hospital has been

taking to deal with the perceived or the real problem with a waiting list -

among other initiatives that they are taking, they are culling the list to see

just what kind of a - maybe there are more than 110, I don't know, but I doubt

it very much, Mr. Speaker. The list is being culled and if there are people on

it over three years, and if, for some reason, they really should not be on it,

then that will be dealt with, it will not be dealt with on a political basis. I

don't have the expertise or desire or the will, nor should I be determining who

is on that waiting list. It is being done in a very meticulous, professional

manner by people who are qualified to do it, which does not include me, nor does

it include the hon. member from - where is he from? wherever he is from.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health must

surely be aware of the statements of the nurses' union over the last twenty-four

or forty-eight hours with regard to the minister. Now, will he immediately do

the honourable thing and withdraw these statements that he has made, apologize

to the nurses' association, apologize to the nurses, especially, who are working

in the Intensive Care Units in the hospitals and apologize, especially, to the

critically ill of this Province, who are waiting for heart surgery, or else, do

the honourable thing and submit his resignation to the Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, somehow, the logic of this line

of questioning escapes me. Yesterday, the president of the nurses' union,

referred to me as a cold-blooded, callous, hard-hearted person -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - and the hon. member is suggesting that I

apologize to the president of the nurses' union for making that statement, Mr.

Speaker? The logic escapes me.

The reality is, there has been no layoff of nurses at the

General Hospital this year or last year, no layoffs whatsoever. There are more

nurses than ever before in the history of this Province working in the General

Hospital at this moment. Forty-six to fifty beds are dedicated to cardiac

patients. The idea of going out and hiring a few nurses off the street. It is

simplistic and anyone who makes that statement does not understand the realities

that exist, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out yesterday the ICU at the General

Hospital is probably the most complex unit in this Province and maybe one of the

most complex units in all of Canada. You cannot rush out on the street and bring

in a few casual nurses to fill in when a nurse is off sick. What the hospital is

trying to do is to put in place a casual pool for the ICU and that is not as

simplistic as the hon. member would have us believe.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that because of the economy we

find ourselves in and because of the fact that there is a surplus of nurses it

is extremely difficult now to get nurses to stay on a casual pool for anything.

Whenever a full-time job becomes available nurses grab that job, Mr. Speaker.

However, bearing that in mind the hospital is still trying to put in place a

pool, and it is going to take six to eight weeks to train one nurse to go on

that pool and even after these six to eight weeks are finished it then takes a

considerable amount of experience before that person is qualified to perform in

one of the most complex ICUs in all of Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is not as

simplistic an issue as hon. members would have us believe. They must recognize

that they tried for seventeen years to deal with this problem. We today are

performing more cardiac surgery than in the history of this Province. There are

more nurses in the General Hospital than ever before. For the first time in the

history of the Province all the beds in the General Hospital are open, all the

operating rooms are open, all the intensive care units are open and everything

that can be done is being done, unlike when the previous administration were in

and there was a wing perpetually closed in the General Hospital which we, Mr.

Speaker, opened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

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

It is nice to see the Minister of Health admitting that the

President of the nurse's union knows him quite well. My question is for the

Minister of Social Services, the other social department in this Province that

is in a complete mess and people are suffering, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the

minister if he can confirm to this House that there is a committee set up,

struck by his department that is making recommendations for a total

re-organization?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that such a

committee exists. We are looking at the structure of the department, both in the

field and here at the executive and head office level, if you like, looking at

our district and regional offices. We have started a computerization program

which I explained to the House some weeks ago which involves an expenditure of

some $2 million over the next couple of years to fully computerize our systems.

Yes, that committee is very active and, in fact, it is a

broad-based committee with representation from all five regions in the Province.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister if there

are any recommendations, suggestions or moves afoot to totally reorganize the

regional offices and to have the program consultants and positions such as these

removed from the regional offices?

MR. GULLAGE: Who?

MR. TOBIN: The program co-ordinators. If these positions

are about to be eliminated?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, I have seen no such

recommendation and the deputy certainly hasn't advised me of any recommendation

like that being considered by the regional offices for recommendation to us. We

have received a substantial number of recommendations from the regional

managers, but no recommendation dealing with removal of program co-ordinators

has been received.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that

his department is looking at the elimination of offices in this Province, the

rearrangement of offices, moving them from one area to the other, such, Mr.

Speaker, as closing down the office in Fermeuse? Would the minister confirm that

that is one of the things his department is looking at?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker. I might say to the member,

first of all, that the answer is no. There has been no recommendation to close

down any offices or, in fact, to relocate and change locations of office in any

region of the Province.

I might say this, though, that as caseloads change from

district office to district office changes in location can happen at any time.

If the caseloads increase dramatically in one district versus another, it is

very logical that you would expand a given office and probably downsize another

one, which would just simply mean a rearrangement of staff. But as far as

actually closing a district office, no, no such recommendation has been received

by me. Certainly if it was received by the deputy I would know about it. We

don't contemplate, particularly now at this time with our ever-increasing

caseload, I certainly don't contemplate or foresee closing any district offices.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear what the

minister had to say in terms of the latter part of his answer. I was somewhat

disappointed in his statement regarding the ever-increasing caseload, and it is

all a result of the lack of economic direction by this government.

Will the minister make a commitment to this House right now

that the office in Fermeuse and other offices around this Province, particularly

in rural Newfoundland, will not close nor will their location change?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, I think I would be rather

irresponsible as a minister to make such a commitment about any office in the

Province. Because as I mentioned, we could see a situation - particularly now

with the problems in the fishery - in given areas of the Province where, with

population shifts and so on, that the demand for a given office may not be

there. The caseloads may drop to the point where it does not make sense to have

staff located in that vicinity. Maybe the staff should be located where the

caseloads have been greatly enhanced. So I cannot make a promise like that. All

I can say to you is I do not foresee, in the immediate future, the closure of a

district office. But I cannot promise that it will not happen.

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

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

question as well for the Minister of Social Services. I am wondering if the

minister could inform the House of the situation at present with the home

support requests that are going into his various district and regional offices

around the Province. I think it falls under the special needs program of his

department. Could the minister inform the House how that program is working?

Government said that it wants to keep people in their homes for a longer period

of time, and in order to do that they say that they have implemented home

support programs. Could the minister inform the House how that program is going,

or if there are many requests?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say that we have had

a considerable number of requests. It is an increasing number over previous

years. The fact is that the program has been made available and it has become

widely known throughout the Province now. People are accessing that program in

increasing numbers, I might say. That puts pressure on the budget that is

available. We are trying to monitor it as best we can, and we do have, as you

know, in Social Services a situation where many of our programs are open-ended

and it is very difficult to deny access to our programs. We have to provide the

service.

In this particular case we are trying to monitor it with

making sure that when we provide services that they are on the basis where the

need is urgent, the need is required. The difficulty always of course is

determining whether it is an urgently required need or whether the service can

be provided, as it was provided, by the family unit. So it is a difficult

decision and we are having great pressures in delivering these services with the

limited funds that we have available.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to

the minister. Is the minister then informing me and the House this morning that

applications for funding under that program are still being processed and still

being approved by his Department? Is that what he is saying?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, at this point to my knowledge

we do not have anybody who has been denied service. We are trying to provide it

on an emergency basis, on the basis of most urgent need. I cannot say that we

will not find ourselves in a predicament as time goes on, because as I say, the

service is available, and people are coming forward looking to avail of it. We

are providing to this point. We have not denied anybody who has asked for the

service and can justify the need for the service - and the alternatives are not

available, and we have deemed that they are not available - we have not denied

anybody. I have had a few cases where I've had to - with the executive staff -

make a decision that we do proceed and provide the service. Even though we are

limited by way of budget.

So we make those decisions as they do in the health care

system. You can't deny people the services if they are justified and if they can

make the case, and we deem that the service is necessary and has to be provided.

I do not know of a case where we have denied service where it is has been deemed

that it is justified.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary

to the minister. I was interested in the minister's answer, and I say this for a

good reason. I have visited four homes in my district of elderly people. Some

single adults and one married couple. Who have requests to the Grand Bank

district office for home support services. There is no question the need is

there.

In one case particularly there is an elderly lady living by

herself, has vision problems, on medication. Her daughter-in-law had to come

from the mainland to spend a couple of months with her. Right? She had to go

back because of family commitments. I have talked to the Grand Bank district

office on all of these four situations. They tell me that there are six or seven

requests in in total. I have talked to the regional office in Harbour Grace

myself and I have been told that that budget has been frozen.

So I want to ask the minister - I mean, obviously if the

budget is frozen there is no further processing or approval of legitimate

requests - would he seriously have a look at that because there are some very

legitimate cases out there? If government is sincere in wanting people to stay

in their own homes to reduce the pressure on nursing care homes and so on, then

won't he take a serious look at that situation with a view, particularly -

because I know in this one instance with this lady that she certainly needs home

support? In other cases, as well, people have said that they are willing to

cost-share the home support, even though they are living on fixed incomes such

as old age security and so on. Their income is very limited, but because they

need the support so badly they are willing to cost-share it even though it might

affect their groceries and their light bills and so on. Would the minister have

a look at that?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I think, as I have already said, that even though budgets are

frozen, and this budget amount is frozen, we do have to deal with cases over and

above that if it is deemed that they are justified and we have to provide the

service. In that case, we have to provide it and decisions have to be made.

I would be more than willing to sit down with the member and

go through those particular situations he speaks of in the Grand Bank area,

review those cases and see whether or not we can provide the service.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is directed to the Minister responsible for

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Speaker, but whoever might want to answer

it.

In the past two or three years, Mr. Speaker, municipalities

in the Province have been hit very hard with drastic cuts and regressive steps,

especially pertaining to the municipal operating grant system. Could the

minister, whoever it might be, tell the House this morning - I asked the

minister responsible the other morning in the estimates if there was a committee

set up - could someone tell me what the real purpose of that committee is, what

is its mandate?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has struck a committee to look at the grants

program. It is in transition now over a three-year period, as the member is

aware, I believe. The new grants program is being phased in, with the old one

being phased out. We are in the second year of that phasein.

The minister felt it wise to have the program looked at and

examined as far as the four components are concerned, to see whether or not they

are delivering the right programs as far as communities are concerned. He has

the Federation of Municipalities involved as well.

The difficulties with the grants, Mr. Speaker, are not with

the grants per se, it is with the fact that we have asked the municipalities to

share a greater burden as far as their budgets are concerned. Over the same

three-year period we have deceased the amount of money flowing to the

municipalities from the Province into the grant structure. That decision was

made about a year and a half ago. It was communicated to the Federation of

Municipalities and to the municipalities themselves. I did it as the minister at

the time. And they were well aware that they were asked to take a greater share

of the burden as far as taxation was concerned, and that the grants would be

phased in at the same time.

So the difficulties they are having, particularly with the

last couple of components, roads and population, deal with the fact that at the

same time the grants are being phased in, the three-year phasein period, they

are also being asked to accept a greater share of the burden as far as taxation

is concerned by way of a reduction in the overall dollars going into the grants

program.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister, Mr. Speaker, that there

was no phasein on the components. The only phasein was on the repayment of the

capital debt. The Federation of Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, has already done an

assessment of municipalities in the Province and found that a high number of the

municipalises which they represent were cut drastically and were hurting from

the municipal operating grant let alone the new formula for repayment on capital

debt.

Could the minister now tell the House what he expects that

committee to find that the Federation didn't, especially with a Federation

member sitting on the committee?

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

MR. GULLAGE: First, Mr. Speaker, let me correct his

statement that there was not a reduction in the capital grants. In the amount of

money that was flowing from the Province into the capital grants, there was a

reduction of some $7 million over a three-year period. So there was a reduction

in the amount of money available, globally if you like, into the grants program.

Now also, of course, they were asked with new debt on capital

to share a burden there as well; to do more for themselves than they were doing

in the past. So with both the grants program and capital debt, municipal capital

debt for roads and water and sewer, both items were involved.

My understanding of the committee was that they were asked to

examine both the grant structure and the impact on the communities, and of

course the impact of adding new debt to their existing debt. I believe they were

asked to look at and examine, and make a recommendation to the minister on both

items, because the grants and the debt that they take on each year, and the

existing debt - in many cases some communities have a large amount of debt

already in place - those two factors have a great bearing on the operation and

the costs of running any given municipality, whether it be small or large.

The committee, I understand, has that mandate. Whether or not

the Federation of Municipalities can add anything to it - because you are right,

they were part of the process throughout the revision of the grants, and the

change in the debt repayment structure - I do not know. But certainly the new

minister has asked them to be part of the process and I would hope that they can

add something new to it that would, if they are having difficulties that can be

identified with the grants program or with the repayment of debt, I am sure that

the minister is willing to look at those difficulties and address them.

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

Capes.

Oh, I am sorry. I did not recognize the hon. member. It looks

like the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes has yielded.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary to the minister.

It is only obvious that the committee is certainly going to

find that municipalities in the Province are hurting. I would like to ask the

minister now, through his colleagues: It is obvious that the recommendations are

going to be that some changes be made to the municipal operating grant, and

quite possibly to the repayment on capital debt. Will the minister make a

commitment to the House today that if they do find that municipalities in the

Province are hurting, that the changes and recommendations will be brought in

and instituted before municipalities bring down their budgets in the fall? They

have to have their budgets submitted by December 31. They cannot submit a

deficit budget. Would the minister make a commitment to the House that those

changes will be made and instituted before they do?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the member knows of course that

I cannot make that promise, not being the minister responsible for the

department, simply an acting minister, and certainly I cannot speak for

government on any changes in the grants program or the repayment of debt.

I can say this. I do feel confident that the major problem

that the municipalities are having is because many of them have not responded to

the grants program, particularly in the incentive component, have still not done

enough for themselves so that they can access the grants program. Many of them

are below the minimum level where they can even be part of it, and that is their

problem. I do not know whether that would be identified as a problem, because I

do not know whether their study is going to be broad enough to include enough

municipalities to find out the ones who are having difficult, and those who are

not. I hope it is, but if they find difficulties with the grants program, and I

personally have difficulty with that, because that program was worked on over a

year and a half period, with a consultant working on it. They did a good job. We

have been told that it is the finest in the country.

I do not think the problem is with the grants program. I

believe the problem is with a given group of municipalities that still have not

become fiscally responsible enough to do more for themselves and thereby get

more from the grants program, which is really an incentive driven program.

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

Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, but seeing neither he nor any of the important ministers are here, I

will ask the omnibus minister, the President of Treasury Board: Is he aware that

changes to the payroll regulations have negatively affected town councils

throughout the Province? And is he aware that many of them, already hit hard by

the new grant structure, cannot afford to pay the taxes and have to lay off

people? I will ask him: Is this typical of the government's attitude of

downloading, the Pontius Pilate attitude of washing their hands and passing it

along? And does he know, or does he care, that the taxpayers in the Province are

once again being crucified by this government?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a question that the

Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is posing.

I would like to remind the hon. member that for the past two

years - year and a half - we, as a Province, have been going through very

difficult times. Last year, we found it absolutely necessary to not only freeze

wages, but to eliminate close to 2,000 positions, 1,700 or 1,800 positions in

the public service of the Province. There is simply, at this point in time, not

enough money to go around.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the member should accept that reality

because it is a reality. It is unfortunate that we do not have enough money to

hire and keep working every single citizen of this Province, I would love to be

able to do it, but, Mr. Speaker, the money is not there, it cannot be paid, I

would ask the hon. gentleman to examine that little bit of logic.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

public galleries today, thirty-two students from Beaconsfield High School

accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Crawley and a parent, I do not have the name,

but who is nevertheless very welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, since this session of the House

has started it is obvious that government is not taking the responsibilities of

ministers as extremely important. The Premier has been here probably three or

four days, and I realize he has a significant amount of business to do, but

every day there are at least four or five ministers that are continuously absent

from the House and we are trying to get answers. Mr. Speaker, I am just

wondering if the President of Treasury Board can bring it up at the next Cabinet

meeting and make Cabinet aware that they should probably set some priority for

the House of Assembly. Since the Royal Commission on Education came down the

Minister of Education has been conspicuous by his absence and we have a lot of

questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe

there are ten ministers out of fourteen here today, which is not too bad. Mr.

Speaker, it is an indication that there are many things going on in this country

that this Province is taking an extremely active role in. When a minister is

absent there is always a minister assigned to keep an eye on the department and

to answer questions in Question Period. I would suggest that the members of the

Opposition recognize that if they ask a question to government they cannot chose

who answers the question, that the question is asked to government and an answer

is given, either by the minister who is directly responsible or by the person

filling in for that minister so there is no interference at all with the smooth

running of the House because Ministers of the Crown are working hard and doing

their job on behalf of the Province, Mr. Speaker. I would also suggest that they

look around at their own benches once in a while.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order there is no point of

order. The member used a point of order to make a certain point of view. Indeed

the lack of presence of members is not a point of order.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to table the 1991 annual report of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Group of Companies. In tabling this report I

would like to mention a couple of points that may be of interest to members. For

example, despite the recession, energy sales continued to rise in 1991. Energy

sales to island interconnected customers rose by 1.7 per cent above 1990 and

energy sales to rural interconnected customers on the island and in Labrador

increased by 0.6 per cent, and energy sales to rural diesel and other isolated

customers rose by 3.6 per cent. Also, the staff complement of the Hydro Group at

year end stood at 1239 people, virtually the same as it was ten years ago.

Relative to the Churchill Falls area an interesting point here, there was an

increase of 0.5 per cent over the previous year in the production of electricity

but precipitation in the water shed at Churchill was 7 per cent below average

making 1991 the eight consecutive year when inflows into that reservoir were

below normal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I did not think you would forget

me.

I have the report of the Social Services Committee on

Estimates. The committee has considered and passed without amendment the

estimates of expenditure for the Departments of Social Services, the Department

of Education, the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment and

Lands, and the Department of Justice. All of these expenditure sub-heads were

passed, Mr. Speaker, without amendment. I submit that on behalf of the

Chairperson of the Committee, who is not here today, Walter Noel, MHA for

Pleasantville. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report on the Estimates

of the Government Services Estimates Committee. We have considered passed

without amendment, the following estimates of expenditure:

The Department of Finance, Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, Department of Employment and Labour Relations, Department of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Estimates also, of Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation. I submit these, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Paul

Dicks, MHA for Humber West.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, the committee system this year was

very successful. We had a lot of co-operation from the Opposition, a lot of

co-operation from government members, and also, I would like to thank the Clerks

at the Table and the Pages here in the House and our recording people, as well.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before calling Motion 3, the Chair would like to bring to the

attention of hon. members, the presence, in the public galleries, of fifteen

students from the Avalon Community College of Bell Island, accompanied by two

instructors, Ms. Miriam Bartlett and Mr. Lester Rose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, to debate certain resolutions, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

Bill No. 16.

The hon. the Opposition Party Whip, the Member for Harbour

Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have a few

words to say on this bill. I am given to understand that there was approximately

$25 million collected last year from this tax and it is hard to believe, Mr.

Chairman, that there is any money being channelled into the health care system

in Newfoundland and Labrador, as the result of the implementation of this

legislation. It is hard to believe, given the fact that the health care system

in Newfoundland and Labrador is in a complete and total mess, a complete and

total shambles.

It seems that we are getting calls on a continuous basis from

people all around the Province and a prime example of it is yesterday - the

number of calls that I am getting from the people of Bell Island with regard to

the cold and callous treatment these people on Bell Island are getting over the

last month or so. They are supposed to have three doctors at the hospital on

Bell Island, now we only have one doctor servicing approximately 4,500 to 5,000

people.

Two doctors retired roughly about a month ago and the

Minister of Health, yesterday, did not even seem to know what is going on, that

the people of Bell Island have not had a clinic from these two extra doctors now

since, May 1st.

Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely unbelievable, that the health

care system could be in the shambles it is in, and some of the callous, blunt

things that are going on. And the Minister of Health is not even aware of the

fact that the people of Bell Island, 4,500 to 5,000 people, don't have the type

of health care system that they deserve and should have? - that the existing

doctor over there is finding it very, very difficult to cope with the number of

individuals whom he has to serve on a daily basis?

So, I make no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the health care

system in this Province is the total, complete, mess it is in. Mr. Chairman, I

found it absolutely unbelievable yesterday, listening to the Minister of Health

in a feature length interview, I call it. It might have only got a minute or so

on television, but I listened to his entire interview for a full fifteen to

twenty minutes outside the House of Assembly yesterday.

I was absolutely appalled, absolutely amazed, Mr. Chairman,

to hear the Minister of Health responding to such a very serious question about

people who are waiting for heart surgery in this Province for a period of

fifty-two weeks, that the Minister of Health could actually say: Well, if anyone

in this Province is waiting for a period of fifty-two weeks for heart, bypass,

or open-heart surgery, I would question whether or not these people should be

there in the first place.

Can you imagine a Minister of Health actually making that

type of statement? Did the minister think that the Intensive Care Unit, the

cardiology unit, over at the Health Sciences Complex, operates like Canadian

Tire? - that you go over, walk in off the street, grab a number, and stand in

line and wait for something like heart or bypass surgery? Is it possible that

the Minister of Health could be so ignorant and incompetent that he could make

that type of statement, that he would question an individual who is critically

ill and waiting for a period of fifty-two weeks, forty weeks, and forty-five

weeks, to have heart surgery done, that he would question whether or not these

people, if they are waiting that long, should be on a waiting list at all.

Can you imagine a Minister of Health making that type of

statement? It is almost inconceivable. I can't believe that anyone could be so

cold, callous and cruel.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: I say to the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture that he should be in our offices up there. We have had people call

from the Health Sciences Complex - I had a person call, and the Member for

Kilbride had a man call from his hospital bed, saying he was admitted for

surgery five or six weeks ago. The surgery was supposed to be performed the

following day, after he had been admitted to hospital. He was lying in his bed

for about six weeks, waiting for somebody to

schedule it - again.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Four cancellations.

MR. DOYLE: I don't doubt that the people over at the

Health Sciences Complex have a very good reason for it, because they are

certainly not to blame. The doctors and nurses are not to blame for it. It is

not a scheduling problem, as the Minister of Health would have everyone believe,

and he need not blame it on a lack of nurses in the Intensive Care Unit. He

knows very well what the problem is. He knows the state that this government has

the health care system in over the last three-year period, in particular.

So it is unbelievable, totally unbelievable, that the

Minister of Health could make such cold and callous remarks to the people who

are critically ill in this Province. It is almost unbelievable that a minister

could make that type of statement. Doesn't the minister realize that anyone who

gets referred to the Health Sciences Complex or any other hospital in this

Province for something as serious as heart surgery, has to go through his own

local physician and get referred and get tested, and all kinds of work done

before he is actually placed on a waiting list? The minister says: Well, if you

are on a waiting list for fifty-two weeks, I would seriously question whether or

not you should be there. What a cold and callous statement, Mr. Chairman!

That is one indication as to why the health care system in

Newfoundland and Labrador is in the state it is in today and getting worse.

These are not statements that are coming from politicians like me or members on

this side of the House. You hear it on a daily basis in the open forums we have

been going to, that the Leader of the Opposition has been conducting around the

Province, from Labrador to the West Coast to the bottom of Carbonear the other

night, people saying the same thing, people coming forward and saying: 'Surely,

there must be something you can do, as a member of the House of Assembly, to try

to bring the minister to task for some of the things he is doing in the health

care system in Newfoundland and Labrador.'

I would make no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the president of

the nurses' association would actually say - it is not very often that you will

hear professional people like that vent their frustrations in that way. But I

can easily understand where the president of the nurses' association is coming

from, since the health care system is in such a state in this Province that they

have to take out full-page ads in The Evening Telegram to make people aware of

what is going on. I can easily understand president of the nurses' association

saying that the Minister of Health is - I think the statement was, a coldhearted

individual. I can easily understand that, when the Minister of Health shows such

an abysmal lack of knowledge with respect to what is happening over at the

Intensive Care Unit and the Cardiology Unit in the hospital, to say that if you

are on a waiting list for fifty-two weeks for heart surgery, that he would have

to question whether or not you belong there in the first place. You know, that

is totally unbelievable.

MR. FLIGHT: That is twenty times now.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, and I am going to say it twenty times

more, let me say to the Minister of Forestry. I am going to say it twenty times

more or fifty times more and probably 100 times more over the next number of

months. I will make sure that every individual in the Province hears it.

MR. FLIGHT: You are more interested in politics than you

are in the issue.

MR. DOYLE: Not the politics of it, Mr. Chairman, but to

make people aware of what an incompetent minister they have in this Province

presiding over the Health Department, one of the most, if not the most,

important portfolios that any individual could have, that we have an individual

with that type of callousness and arrogance and incompetence at the head of such

an important department as the Ministry of Health. He thinks it is run like

Canadian Tire, where you go in and grab and number and stand in line and wait.

These are statements, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start by saying that I am pleased to hear the

Member for Harbour Main is concerned with the problems that we are encountering

currently at the hospital on Bell Island. I am pleased to see his caring

attitude towards the hospital and the needs on Bell Island. I guess, I am more

pleased than anything else with his keen interest in what is happening with the

hospital on Bell Island. The only thing I regret is that he never had the same

interest when he represented the area, when he represented the Dr. Walter

Templeman Hospital, when he worked actively to have the hospital closed, shut

down, closed up, boarded up and all the patients who were there and all the

medical staff there moved to St. John's.

Now, Mr. Chairman, during his tenure of four years not one

dollar was spent on paint, not one dollar spent on a nail, not one dollar spent

on a door, not one dollar spent on a bed, not one dollar spent - I was going to

say food, but, yes, he was compelled, as the member, to at least provide food.

Now, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member stands here and talks

about the Dr. Walter Templeman Hospital, as I said, I am pleased with his

interest. I regret that we couldn't convince the husband or the wife, the two

doctors who retired, we couldn't convince the husband to move away and the wife

to stay. We couldn't convince them to divorce, separate, break up their marriage

after giving many, many years to the community. As a matter of fact, the hon.

member represented the area so long I doubt if he could even tell us the names

of the two doctors who retired. I won't provide the information to him because

one day he will actually visit Bell Island to see what it looks like as opposed

to doing his business in Portugal Cove. Mr. Chairman, with respect to what is

really happening over there it is very simple. One, there is a very good, solid,

dedicated group of people on Bell Island who are recommending the things that

should be done at that hospital, so much so that they laid down the names of the

doctors that maybe we should be interviewing. They have been helping us that

way. They have been there to support our efforts in finding doctors. They have

been there in our support of what the hospital should be. Now, when we converted

the Sir Walter Templeman Hospital over from the hospital that it was to chronic

care it was based on their recommendations.

The hospital is being administered by St. Clare's and I guess

anyone in their right mind knows that, the Templeman Hospital is being

administered by St. Clare's. We were told the other day that a doctor has been

hired and will be arriving in July and taking up his position. We have been told

that the search is on for a second doctor and that we as a government and as a

Department of Health are actively pursuing finding that second doctor and it

will not be long, please God, and we will have one. This situation is not just

unique to Bell Island, it is unique to almost every part of rural Newfoundland.

There is a shortage of doctors in most parts of rural Newfoundland. There is an

abundance here in St. John's unfortunately but they prefer to live here, they

prefer to be here and as much as we tried, and I give credit to the previous

government, as much as they tried to convince doctors to move and go to other

areas they will not do it.

We are fortunate as well that the current deputy minister of

Health, Dr. Bob Williams, worked on Bell Island, served in the area and

understands the needs of the community. Now, we leave the impression also that

there is one doctor over there trying to cope with everything, and that is not

really true. St. Clare's have made it a point to make sure there is someone

there to cover for the weekends, someone there to meet the needs. We all know

also, unlike the grandstanding the Member for Harbour Main would like to leave

us to believe, that there is no interest, no care, and nobody really wanting to

do something. He is wrong, he knows he is wrong, but it is an opportunity for

him to grandstand. Unfortunately he usually does his grandstanding when the

media leave the gallery. He usually does his grandstanding when there is nobody

here to listen. He usually tries to do his grandstanding where he can get the

weekend publicity but unfortunately this weekend he will not get it.

Now, let us look at what has really happened in the medical

profession in this Province. There have been more hospital beds re-opened under

this administration than the previous administration. There have been more

commitments made to hospital construction in the three short years we have been

here than in the seventeen years that our friends on the other side were here.

Our system of administering medical services to this Province is being held up

as a model in all of Canada. We have opened more beds and we have hired more

staff. We have committed between $50 and $100 million more to medical services

in this Province than the previous government. We as a government apologize, I

suppose, because we do not have the number of nurses we need in certain areas

and the number of doctors we need in certain areas but those people in a lot of

cases are just not available.

At Estimates last night we heard about the Anderson Centre

and the need to meet the psychiatric needs of children and their families as

well. We have money allocated for thirteen professional people we want to hire.

We would take them tomorrow if they would come but we can only find five. For

the last two years the highest we have gotten up to is seven. We have even

re-classified their salary structure so that we could bump it up to a higher

degree so that we could hopefully attract people but it has not happened.

Now we will do everything we can to meet the needs, not only

of one given area of this Province, but in any area of this Province, and to try

to single out any one area where there are problems that are existing, and they

are not problems that we have created. It is not a problem of wanting to hire

people. It is a problem of finding people who actually want to come here. I

doctors, and foreign doctors who have been recruited throughout Europe to come

here to practice, because we just do not have the medical staff that we are

looking for. Our medical school is just not churning them out fast enough, and

when we do, and when they do become qualified, unfortunately they move away, or

they move to the big cities.

We are trying to address the problem, and I have absolute

confidence in what the Minister of Health has attempted to do over the last

number of years. I show my appreciation also of the fact that he spent, in my

own district, in excess of $250,000 to refurbish our hospital on Bell Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: We will talk about tourism at another time.

Let us not single out, and let us not try to take advantage

of a situation that has occurred through no fault of ours, to even go to the

point of trying to cast aspersions on the two doctors who retired, who gave good

parts of their lives to a community that I represent, the community of Bell

Island. As I have said, these people have worked very hard in that area. They

deserve their retirement. They have taken their retirement. They have left us;

but our desire to find people to replace them has carried on, and I will tell

you not to be concerned, and the hon. Member for Harbour Main should not be

concerned about our fight and our efforts to find the replacement doctors that

we need for the Walter Templeman Hospital. Do not be concerned, and do not worry

about it.

We are doing that all across the Province. We are doing it in

northern Newfoundland. We are doing it in western Newfoundland. I was talking

earlier about some of the hospitals, the fact that we are looking to open more

hospitals; we are looking to upgrade existing facilities, such as, as I

mentioned earlier, the Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital in Stephenville. We are

looking to upgrade that facility, as we have done with others, including our own

on Bell Island.

So allow me to say to the hon. member, I appreciate his

interest and I appreciate his concern. I only regret that he never had the same

interest and concern when he apparently represented the area and wanted to close

the facility.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is ironic to listen to the hon. member when yesterday when

the hon. Member for Harbour Main brought up this issue, the hon. member was not

even aware of it. It is only since the hon. Member for Harbour Main brought up

the issue that he became aware of it.

MR. WALSH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. gentleman again is casting aspersions. When the

question was asked in the House of Assembly yesterday, the Minister of Health -

and Hansard will show - is aware that I made him aware of this subject weeks and

weeks ago, maybe a month or month and a half ago. He also made the hon. members

on the other side aware that I have had meetings and discussions with Sister

Elizabeth Davis at St. Clare's Hospital about this exact same issue. In actual

fact they are aware of that, but again I suppose if you are a strawberry picker

you try to pick whatever you can, but you will not pick me today, I am sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The hon. member is wrong again. Every

time he stood in this House since he was elected on a point of order it was

always ruled that there was no point of order. I should get Hansard one of these

days and add them up. It has probably been a couple of hundred times since he

got elected that he has been ruled out of order. Maybe he will learn. Eventually

he will learn.

Maybe he was aware of it. Maybe when the hon. Member for

Harbour Main mentioned it yesterday he was aware of it, and he was so

embarrassed that he did nothing with the Minister of Health, and he did not

emphasize the importance of it to the Minister of Health, and that is the reason

why there was nothing done. Maybe that is the reason he is so upset over this

now, because he was aware of it and he did not do his job. The Member for

Harbour Main, by raising it yesterday, got some information to the people of

Bell Island who have been phoning him. He cannot help it. He answers his

telephone. He is the one who is receiving the calls on this issue. He cannot

help it if the people from Bell Island phone him, asking for assistance.

He raised it, and there was some little amount done of it.

There is supposed to be one doctor recruited now already, and you only raised it

yesterday, I believe, was it?

MR. DOYLE: Yes.

MR. R. AYLWARD: There was one doctor recruited already to

serve in the Bell Island hospital, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is great. Now

the hon. member has the opportunity to ask questions in this House. He can raise

it publicly. I did not see him stand in his place to raise this issue in the

House of Assembly, as the Member for Harbour Main did.

It is ironic to listen to the Minister of Health here this

morning when we talk about Bill 16, our health and education tax, I believe it

is referred to. Our payroll tax. It is supposed to be a tax to improve our

health system. We always hear when the Minister of Health stands up that there

is no problem in the health system. He will not admit there is a problem. There

is no problem, he says, it is only organizational. It has nothing to do with

money, it is only organizational. Seventy or a hundred people on a waiting list

for heart operations is not a problem. I do not understand.

Here is what in 1989 when this group of people and Premier

Wells were trying to get elected, these are some of the promises that they made

in this Campaign '89 manual put out, Liberal, a Real Change. Here is what they

said about the health system in 1989 when they were looking for government, when

they were not expecting at all that they would ever be elected. Here is what

they said about the health system, on page 18, in this campaign manual: the

health system in Newfoundland and Labrador is in turmoil. That is what they said

about the health system in 1989. Hospital beds remain close while patients wait

for months, sometimes in pain and anguish, to be admitted. A hundred people on a

waiting list for heart operations, if they are not in pain and anguish, I do not

know who is.

It also says in here: doctors and nurses and support staff

are overworked and in many cases underpaid. What did this government do? Pay

doctors less last year. They are paying them for 75 per cent of the work that

they do now. That is what their answer to it is. But in 1989, when they wanted

votes from the people of this Province, they said doctors, nurses and support

staff are overworked and in many cases underpaid. Since they took over, what

they did about that problem that they recognised in 1989 is lay off 2,000 people

in the health support sector, 2,000 less people in the system two years ago, and

they have frozen their wages for two years. So that is how they looked after the

problem that they identified, that doctors, nurses and support staff are

overworked and in many cases underpaid.

If that is not a down and out lie in this document of what

they said they would do, the problem that they announced, and what they are

doing, I do not know what it is.

They go on to say that: facilities and services are strained

beyond their limits. Yet they close a hospital in Port aux Basques, they cut the

services in Port aux Basques;, they cut the services in Placentia; they cut the

services in St. Lawrence; they cut the services in Baie Verte. That is what they

did since they got in. Yet in 1989 when they wanted votes from the people of

this Province they said that facilities and services are strained beyond their

limits.

Here is what they go on to say: yet the Tory minister has

consistently refused to admit that there is a problem. I believe the person who

wrote this must have been a prophet, but he was talking about our present

Minister of Health, not the Tory minister of health in the last government. The

Tory minister of health has consistently refused to admit there is a problem.

That is exactly what the Minister of Health is doing today with our health care

system. He does not admit there is a problem. 'There is nothing wrong with the

health care system, we are improving it. It is a better system now,' he keeps

saying. Yet there are 2,000 people laid off, there are hospital beds closed, and

there are hospitals closed throughout the Province. Yet in 1989 that was not a

problem.

It goes on here to say that: it is not possible to correct

the problem until you first admit it exists. I say that the Premier and his

Cabinet should dig this out, this 1989 policy manual. They should take it out

and dust it off a bit. Because there must be a lot of dust after accumulating on

it since they got elected. Because obviously they have not read this since 1989.

They certainly have not done anything about it since 1989. They have done the

opposite. The Minister of Development and Tourism, would be interested in this

next line in the policy manual. I brought it to his attention yesterday in

another matter; here is the next line:

This critical situation must be alleviated immediately. That

is the word that is in this, Mr. Chairman, 'immediately', it must be alleviated,

not if we get some money in the future, not if we bring in a payroll tax, not if

I get a chance, it must be alleviated immediately, it is truly a matter of life

and death and what have we heard in this Province ever since this crowd of

people have been elected? We hear the hospital support union NAPE, suggesting

that all of our health care systems are understaffed, the support staff in our

health care systems are overworked, they are underpaid and they cannot keep up

with the demand.

We see the nurses' union, which ordinarily is not a very

militant union in this Province, they have spent a tremendous amount of money to

try to inform the public of what is happening in our health system and have gone

to the extreme of even taking out ads in our public media and on television, a

very expensive operation, but they, the nurses' union in this Province, think

that the issue was so important that they have to spend this money to inform the

people of the Province of the problems that are in the health care system,

particularly the problems that the nurses are experiencing.

Mr. Chairman, they are not asking for more money all the

time, they are asking for improvements to the health care system, that is what

the nurses' union wants, they are not looking for raises and more benefits, that

is not what their ads say.

Mr. Chairman, the Liberal Health Policy dictates that as long

as the demand exist, hospital beds must be kept open. I am sure they appreciate

that in St. Lawrence, where you closed that hospital and, where was the other

one? Grand Bank, I believe was one you closed, Port aux Basques you tried to

eliminate it. Placentia was supposed to be closed except the member for the area

at the time, did nothing about it, the Liberal member, but the people came in

here in force and forced the government to reconsider, yet the hospital is

operating at about 10 per cent of what it operated before this government took

over, yet we have in this manual, Liberal Health Policy dictates that as long as

the demand exists, hospital beds must be kept open; institutes must not be

understaffed and compassion must always take precedence over business

administration.

Now where is this policy now that you are making decisions in

Cabinet, where is this policy form? Is it only the Member for Eagle River who

has a copy of it left? He is the only one who seems to want to live up to the

promises that he made in 1989. Certainly, not one Cabinet Minister in the

government has ever read this policy manual since the election. If they have

read it, Mr. Chairman, they are certainly deceiving the people of the Province

when they make decisions that are completely opposite to what their Policy

Manual said.

It is alright to say this kind of stuff when you are looking

for votes, but when you get in and make decisions, you have to stick with it,

you cannot just go around this Province promising the sky- that is what the NDP

does in every Province. They go around promising everything because they never

expect to be elected and you see in Ontario and in BC and other places, you see

in other -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we shut Sprung down

(inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, you shut Sprung down. Yes, you said

you shut Sprung down but it is not in this, your policy manual. There is nothing

in your policy manual about Sprung, that is the only one you kept, is that the

only promise you kept since you were elected?

There are policies in here on every issue. Mr. Chairman, the

Minister of Agriculture - I might want to read out some of the forestry policies

that we have here to see what promises he has broken. There are promises here on

many issues, but none of them is Sprung, I do not see anything in its contents

that mentions Sprung, so what the administration actually did, was, waste more

money on an inquiry into Sprung then wasted a fortune of money hiring

accountants, lawyers and having a judge spend months and months on this, when

they knew there was nothing illegal with it, and now they are afraid to table

it. They will not table the report that the commission did. Put it on the table

of this House and let us have a debate on it. I would debate it any time at all.

I certainly would stand up to my decisions on Sprung as compared to the Liberal

health policy and what you are after doing. I would be pleased to stand here and

debate my decisions on Sprung when I look in this and see: the Liberal health

policy dictates that as long as demand exists hospital beds must be kept open -

and that is exactly the opposite of what you did. At least I stuck up for

Sprung, Mr. Chairman, whether I made wrong decisions or not. I did not go around

promising people one thing and then come in here and lie to them and do the

opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is all public. The inquiry that you

paid a fortune for, hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the inquiry, said it

is all public. There is nothing wrong with it. It is your inquiry and not mine,

so Sprung is a dead issue. You can keep bringing it up as long as you like. Mr.

Chairman, this is not a dead issue. The Liberal health policy in this Province,

Mr. Chairman, is not a dead issue. This critical situation must be alleviated

immediately.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I say about the NDP. The NDP do the

same thing as the Liberal administration in this Province did in the last

election. They go around promising the sky, expecting never to be elected in a

hundred years, Mr. Chairman, then when they get elected it frightens the life

out of them the same as happened to this government. Now, we have to live up to

some of these promises but the Premier we have in this Province is a lawyer and

the way lawyers are trained, the whole training of lawyers in the profession is

that two lawyers go into a courtroom, and as the Member for Humber Valley said

one time, one of them has to prove that the other fellow is a liar. That is what

lawyers do, so the Premier has no trouble saying one thing one day and then the

complete opposite thing the other day.

It is like he is going into a courtroom today to defend me

and he is saying what a great fellow I am and then the next day he is hired by

the Crown and goes into the courtroom and says what a crook I am. A lawyer has

no problem with that, that is his job. This is the first time in history that we

have had a lawyer elected as Premier of our Province. The unions did not call

him a lawyer. There was a campaign that went around a little while ago that did

not call him the first lawyer in our Province. Probably he was not the first

what the unions called him who was elected in our Province, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member refers to the

Liberal document that we published during the last election which we laid out

for the people to see. All things being equal here is what we would like to do,

that is what we said to the Province. It is pretty honest. I think the document

went on for some forty pages. It was a blueprint that was laid before the people

of the Province in various departments and various sectors: here is what we

would like to do all things being equal. Now, on the other side as I recall

during the election there were no policies. There was no policy manual, there

was no blueprint, there was no direction.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never had one to deceive the people.

MR. FUREY: Well, therein lies the deception in itself, to

have none and to say, to articulate as candidates that you have one when it is

invisible. So what did we say we would like to do, all things being equal, and

not knowing what the Treasury was like, because as we sat on that side in

Opposition, we had no way of knowing what state the Treasury was in. We could

only ask questions and get kind of clouded, hazy and foggy answers - when the

Legislature was open. It was closed for nearly -

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of the time.

MR. FUREY: Yes, most of the time it was closed. I

remember having a press conference outside of the old Legislature upstairs with

our former leader, demanding that the people's House be open. We couldn't even

get it open. So, all things being equal, what did we say we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Be quiet now, because you weren't even here.

What did we say we would like to do? We would like to see

people have good-paying and productive jobs. Surely they are not against that.

We would like to have seen that. We would like to see equal access to

educational opportunities for our children; not a bad policy; not a bad

blueprint; not a bad game plan. We would like to see a standard of health care

equivalent to everybody else in Canada. You cannot be against that. We would

like to see good municipal, social and transportation public services for our

people everywhere. We would like to see that, and an opportunity for our

children to grow up in a healthy environment, and to be happy.

That was the general context of what we laid out for our

policy development. Then we went into some specifics. We talked about Churchill

Falls and how we would like to see that altered through the intra-provincial

barriers, and free flow of power. We talked about that. We were not dishonest.

We didn't hide from it. We talked about it. We said in education that a Liberal

government would abolish school taxes.

MR. DECKER: And we did, and you are not getting them

back.

MR. FUREY: What did the Liberal government do? We wiped

out the school tax. Now, the hon. member doesn't like that. He doesn't feel good

about it. He would like to be able to criticize us and say, bring back the

school tax, but we ain't gonna bring back the school tax. It is history - gone.

We said we would do it. We did it.

It is interesting, because the school tax before was set up

in such a strange way that children in rural parts of the Province, for example,

St. Barbe, would only get something like $90 per pupil in their grants, and

children in St. John's and Corner Brook were getting $300 and $400. That was

wrong, and it was wrong for the seventeen years that the hon. gentleman on the

opposite side occupied the government; and we pointed it out many, many times.

Did they have a policy to correct the Margaret Thatcher-type tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. FUREY: No, they did not, but we did, and we

delivered. And we are delivering on our Royal Commission on Education. 'Our

Children, our Future' - a brilliant document which is bold and innovative, which

has been laid out for the people to look at. The recommendations are all clear.

There is nothing hidden, and we seek input now from the churches, and from the

parents, and from the students, and from everybody in our society who wants to

effect real change - real change. Do you remember that - real change? That is

what we promised, too. We promised real change, and we are going to see some

innovative things.

If you turn to the next page, Mr. Chairman - I hope this is

not backbreaking for you to listen to - you will see electoral reform. The

Conservative government promised for years and years and years, even in the four

years we sat in Opposition, that they would bring in an Elections Act which

would control spending; which would control who could donate to a party and to a

person and to a candidate; which would put all of those controls in place. I

think - and the hon. the member for Grand Bank can correct me if I am wrong - I

think you put a select committee of the House in place, led by Mr. Carter of

Mount Scio. Then they came up with some kind of very shallow report, as I

recall, and it fizzled.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: You are going to say the contribution to the

Liberal leaders -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Again, he was up-front, honest, and

straightforward about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Well, you can play tricks with language all

you want. I have never seen a more honest leader in my life in this country. Why

do you think he is so popular in this country?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Because he is honest. Now, honesty is a tough

one to take in the gut for the Opposition, because they do not recognize it.

They don't even know what it means. They wouldn't have a clue, not a click, what

it means.

We promised an Elections Act. Well, guess what is on the

Order Paper in this session? - an Elections Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Then we go on to talk about the environment,

and we have a terrific Minister of Environment and Lands, who is very sensitive

to what is happening in this country, very sensible, too, to what is happening

in this country. You would have been proud, as I was, to read the clippings

coming out of Globe '92 and out of Toronto and out of her presentation to the

Senate committee and the House of Commons committee in Ottawa. She did a

terrific job. Because you know something? It is about time we started talking

about the fishery in environmental terms, and this minister has done a superb

job in that regard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about cleaning up

pollutants and hazardous wastes, and again they are moving in that direction as

the policy manual talked about.

We laid out a policy for fisheries. We asked for shared

management. Unfortunately, we cannot unilaterally take control of our future and

our destiny when it comes to the fishery. Because, as you know, under the Terms

of Union and under the Constitution, the fishery jurisdiction when it leaves

land into the water, is clearly and fully a federal responsibility. And we have

seen how the federal government has screwed that up over the years. That is why

we asked for shared management and shared jurisdiction. That is something that

we are working on. We cannot be held accountable because your Conservative

friends in Ottawa don't see the merits of shared management. But we would like

to do that.

Forestry and Agriculture: The minister is moving ahead with

some of the policies in here that we have talked about. The Agricultural

Department did a major study on farming and how we can rejuvenate and become

self-sufficient - some interesting concepts and ideas there. We have lived up

that.

Now, I come to health. What a Minister of Health! I have

heard people attack this Minister of Health all morning - somebody asking him to

have a terrific minister of health - taking bold decisions, moving health care

into the 21st century. It would do your heart good to see The Globe and Mail -

not a Newfoundlander - The Globe and Mail examining the health care systems

across the country. Which minister and which department in which province did he

rate the highest? This minister, in this department, in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I can remember sitting over there

and talking to the government of Mr. Peckford, at the time, and pointing out

that there was an old bunch of lumber camps stuck together in Port Saunders.

What a poor excuse for a hospital - asking 4,000 people to come into old woods

camps that were joined together almost like trailers. That is their hospital. I

asked for help and I was ignored. I asked time and time again for help, and I

was ignored. I asked this minister to come into my district and take a look at

it first-hand. Within two months there was $250,000 for planning, because it is

the right thing to do, not because it is a Liberal district. I am proud to tell

you that this minister allocated $8 million. There will be a new hospital built

in Port Saunders, and 4,000 people will have a decent place to come and get

decent health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, not because it was a Liberal

district. Because the district switches back and forth. It is because it's the

right thing to do. The people in St. Lawrence needed a new and decent hospital

in the hon. the Member for Grand Bank's own district. They are getting it

because this Minister of Health saw it to be the right thing to do, an $8 or $9

million hospital.

Down in Burgeo, where they were ignored for years, and where

my hon. friend, the former minister of transportation, and the Member for Burgeo

- Bay d'Espoir, stood time and time again as the Liberal member in the

Opposition, asking the government for a decent health care facility for Burgeo,

he was ignored year after year. This Minister of Health has $10 million going in

down there to put a decent health care service in an isolated part of the

Province because it is the right thing to do.

Resign? This minister should be kept on for a long, long

time, because he has some more important changes to make, and he has really

proven himself with respect to our policy manual.

I can go on and on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Auditor General's Act.

MR. FUREY: If the hon. member wants - the Auditor

General's Act, of course.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Tobin): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

MR. FUREY: A little bit of leave just to conclude?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member does not have leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak to

this bill which is ineptly named the Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax. It

is not clear that any of this money is actually doing anything to improve the

situation with respect to post-secondary education or health. We have a very

serious problem in the health care field in this Province. Not much different,

Mr. Chairman, although some changes have been made. Then it was described by the

Liberal party in its platform as being the health care system in turmoil. We do

have a very serious situation with respect to that and I am afraid that the

minister responsible has been contributing to the problem by the kind of

statements he makes about health care issues, particularly in the last few days,

Mr. Chairman. To treat issues of waiting lists for serious surgery with the kind

of attitude that the minister expresses is only causing great concern to people

in this Province as to whether or not government seriously cares about dealing

with the issues up front.

Similarly, dealing with the issues of mental health and the

provision of services through the Thomas Anderson Centre in the Janeway Hospital

once again, Mr. Chairman, people are given to wonder whether this minister is

serious about delivering services or whether he is more anxious to score

political points or try and rebuff suggestions that the Province is not doing

enough. What the Liberal policy paper said was that institutions must not be

understaffed and that compassion must always take precedence over business

administration, but what we have had in the mental health field during the last

two years, at least, has been exactly that, an understaffed situation where

business administration takes precedence over compassion and over the needs of

young people, and particularly in this instance, for mental health services.

Attempts were made through the Estimate Committee to get the

answers as to what was going on at the Thomas Anderson Centre, within this House

and in the Estimates Committee, but no real answers were forthcoming. We have a

serious crisis, Mr. Chairman, in this area in the Province. Mental health issues

are coming much to the forefront. The serious and long-term impact of situations

such as child abuse and such as other mental health issues with young people are

coming to the forefront because people are starting to recognize that there is

an necessity for intervention by agencies of government and health care in this

field. The working group on child sexual abuse in a final report on therapeutic

intervention in sex offense cases in Newfoundland, December 1991, says that it

is essential that people working with offenders understand the impact of

violence on victims, recognize their powerlessness, and also recognize that the

development of services for victims and families needs to be made a priority.

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty with the government's

commitment in that area, when we have had the Thomas Anderson Centre

understaffed for two or three years. There is a suggestion there is difficulty

with hiring yet last May the minister was asked about this and at that time

there had not been a recruiting program for a year before that. Now we are told

that sometime between May and now there was some effort to recruit but no

details could be provided. Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough. If there is a

problem in recruiting the proper people for a service of this nature then

government has an obligation to do something about it.

For many, many years before we had a medical school there was

a problem recruiting doctors to practice in this Province and what did

government do? They went and actively recruited. I remember the former Minister

of Health back in the 50s and 60s, Dr. Jim McGrath used to go off to Ireland

every year on trips to recruit doctors. Gargantuan efforts were made to bring

doctors to this Province and ultimately the decision was made to start a medical

school to produce our own doctors, as we now do, not only for this Province but

for other parts of North America and indeed the world.

Mr. Chairman, when a matter is given a priority it deserves

government takes action to do something about it. We do not see that action in

this area. We see a slack approach by the government, lollygagging about for two

or three years, using excuses, trying to blame it on the unions, talking about

labour disputes, and talking about disagreements between unions. These are the

kind of excuses government and the minister have been giving to hide the real

issue which is they are dealing more with business administration than with the

real needs of the people that are trying to be served. The minister comes in

this House and talks about the thing not being successful, well, Mr. Chairman,

there has not been the effort required to make it successful and to ensure that

this service is adequately provided.

If the issue was understaffing, why didn't the director of

the Janeway Hospital - who spoke on this issue this morning, was interviewed at

length on CBC radio - mention a thing about not being able to get the people? He

did not say anything about not being able to recruit. He did not talk about that

problem at all. He said: they were assessing this and they were looking at how

they were going to approach this in the future, and after all, we are a

provincial hospital, et cetera.

Last year the minister was saying: we have a definite plan.

Once this thing is up and running we are going to put these centres in other

parts of the Province. We are now being told that the excuse is: we cannot get

people on the one hand, by the minister, and on the other hand by the

administrator of the Janeway that: we are assessing this, it is an ongoing

process, and this takes a long period of time.

What is the real answer? Is the minister telling us the

truth? Or is the administrator telling us what is really going on? We are being

asked to support this measure to provide increased funds for post-secondary

education and health, but we are not being given any answers by the government

as to where they are placing the priority when it comes to mental health.

Whether for teenagers and adolescents, or for adult survivors, for the mental

health issues that are so clearly prominent in our society today, many of them

as a result of sexual assault on young people, on children, which has come to

the forefront. We have the statistics released from the Department of Social

Services indicating that the reports of child sexual abuse have doubled from

approximately 650 last year to over 1,200 in the following year.

That is a very serious increase. There needs to be an

understanding that these have very serious impacts for the mental health of

people. If we do not do something now to help these young people, these people

who are suffering from this, we are going to be doing something later when they

get into other problems. Whether they be mental health problems, education

problems, unemployment problems, health problems, such as potential suicides. We

may see them later on in our psychiatric wards, we may see them as burdens to

society in many other ways. Also, that is not obviously the point, although we

are talking about finances here, the real point is that there must be services

available to prevent these very serious impacts on the victims of this kind of

abuse.

That is what is required. I am quoting here from the working

group on child sexual abuse: there must be a recognition that the present gaps

in services pose tremendous hardship for victims, and stress and strain for the

professionals and care givers trying to respond to their needs. That is what is

happening now. It is a very serious priority. I do not get any sense from the

statements of the minister other than trying to rebuff criticism, not deal with

the problems. I do not get any sense that the government is taking this as a

serious priority and has an actual plan that it is prepared to implement,

prepared to say; here is what we are doing now, here is what we are going to do

in the future, and people can make their plans accordingly and have some

indication at least from this government, and some confidence, that their

government is going to respond to those needs on a priority basis.

That is what is lacking, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I

would like to see before we can support this Bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

have a few comments on Bill 16. The Minister of Development gave a very fine

speech and talked about all the good things that his government had promised,

and all the good things that had been accomplished. I suppose he is right in

some respects. There have been some positive happenings over the last three

years. I suppose that for every time the sun shines we expect a little rain, and

I suppose there were some negative aspects of government policies over the last

number of years as well.

I would like to speak specifically about this new tax

measure. it is a tax to aid education and health. It is a tax on the backs of

people who are already taxed to the hilt. I was speaking to one of the town

councils in my district only a week ago. Because of the lowering of the amounts

from $200,000 down to $100,000, where any small company, town council, or

whatever, will have to pay this tax. Where town councils are certainly

restricted now in their spending, because of the changes in the grant system,

and because of the absence of the road component, which is gone, that they are

having a great problem financing the daily routine of their councils.

Like Torbay. When there was a level of $200,000, Torbay did

not reach that level. But now, with the $100,000, Torbay, with a small group of

people employed, will reach up to $180,000. So again, it is a harsh reality on

councils that do not have the dollars to do the necessities of everyday running

at councils, such as Torbay. Torbay is only one that I mentioned, because the

same situation is existent in Outer Cover, Middle Cove, Logy Bay, Pouch Cove. I

suppose you could go right across the island. Carbonear, Harbour Grace. Any of

those areas that - we are not speaking of St. John's, Mount Pearl, or Corner

Brook and Grand Falls. But the other areas that are being hurt by the changes in

the grants system.

My two colleagues across can laugh all they like, but

wherever they come from, whatever part of Newfoundland they come from, and if

councils are coming across to them loud and clear, telling them the same things

they are telling me, that they are hurting because of the changes in the grant

system. Here is another problem that was not existent a year ago but is there

staring them in the face now.

Also, we see the day, and it is no secret to anyone, it is

perhaps more in the media than anything else. Sometimes I look at it and say:

they are all Johnny-come-latelys. They did not see a problem there a year ago,

but these past eight months everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon about

the fishery, and the problems that we are having in the fishery. In fact, I saw

a piece in the paper yesterday evening, where one of the Liberal backbenchers,

an ex-Cabinet minister, said that one of the plants in his district would have

to look at some down tuning as it pertains to salaries and negotiations. I think

that the plant is closed now because of a labour dispute.

In the same token, that plant that did not have to pay this

payroll tax last year will now be subject to the payroll tax. I think that the

government should take a hard, real, conscientious look at each fish plant and

see if it is viable, see if they are making any money but just don't do it on an

overall basis because some of those plants are hurting now and I do not think

that this is going to do any good, in fact it is going to put them farther in

the hole and you will see more plants closed because of this tax.

Now I know that taxation is necessary. Governments must have

money to survive and the Minister of Development and Tourism certainly shouted

loud and clear that the school tax is gone, he is right, the school tax is gone.

I am one of the people who was a member of the St. John's Board when the school

tax was brought in, and I had misgivings, mixed feelings about the tax from day

one, but, Mr. Chairman, the school boards needed additional money and that was

one way that they could acquire the money they needed. Perhaps now, this

government finds itself in a position where they are going to make the situation

better for school boards; I hope that that will be the end result.

Our personal income tax has gone up 4 percentage points, so,

while dissolving the school tax, we certainly did not do anything great. The

monies are still needed; the school tax used to pay out to school boards about

$30 million a year, and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

certainly can register his 'ayes' to that, we certainly need it in many of the

schools, just for incidentals, for everyday needs of the schools and I hope that

the government will fork over that amount of money to the boards.

The Minister of Education has guaranteed us in this House

that it will happen.

I have been speaking to some of the chairmen of the school

boards in the St. John's area and it certainly has not happened to date. They

are hurting in every respect and hopefully government will find a way to rectify

that situation. Also, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Development and Tourism

spoke about the House closing, the closing of the House, and I am sure that the

Minister of Development and Tourism today would love to have the House closed,

but when he was on this side it was a different situation. He was always out

there before the media saying that the people's House is not open, that the

people want access to what is going on, but, Mr. Chairman, when you change sides

that changes as well and I am sure the Minister of Development and Tourism will

agree with that.

Mr. Chairman, we find so much negativity as far as our

educational system is concerned and today we have before us, Dr. William's

report and his recommendations. I have said it before, Mr. Chairman, and I will

say it again, that, although Newfoundlanders are unique in our educational

system, we take an awful lot of ribbing from our own people as to how many

people in Newfoundland are ignorant, how many people in Newfoundland are less

educated than the people in the rest of Canada and indeed in this part of the

Americas, but I say now and I have said before, that our best export is our

expertise.

There is a great number of Newfoundlanders right across North

America, in every town in every place that you will go with high paying

positions. Positions of trust, and you name it, Mr. Chairman, because we just

did not have the technical facilities or we did not have the hospitals, we did

not have the universities, but you go right across North America and you will

find Newfoundlanders in some very, very responsible positions and we call it the

brain drain, and yes, it is a brain drain. But we just do not have the

wherewithal for our students to apply themselves in this particular Province,

but, Mr. Chairman, I do not mind that, because if you go to Boston or go down to

any part of the United States and you meet some people there - they come from

Florida; they come from New York State; they come from Pennsylvania - you never

hear those people say that they had to move from one area to the other. It is

all the United States of America, and the same thing with Canada. It is all

Canada, so if you have to move from Newfoundland to Ontario, so what? It is all

part of a great country.

We talk so much about having to go to the mainland. It is a

privilege to have such a country so diversified, so many employment

opportunities, that we can go to other parts of the country; that we can find

work in other parts of the country. So I really have a job with that.

You will hear people saying: The illiteracy rate in

Newfoundland, how do you compare it with other parts of the world?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave of the

House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I always have to go back and

relate to an old gentleman I knew down in Port de Grave. His name is Aubrey

Penton. I saw many boats, long-liners, which that gentleman built. If he was in

some parts of the mainland, or the states, he would be grabbed up by some

shipyard. That man today perhaps would be classed as having no education, but

glory be to goodness, Newfoundlanders are such that they have done such great

things in just being able to do what they have to do, and do it in a righteous

manner.

We have experts in all fields of endeavour. Granted, our

educational standards perhaps could be increased. Our educational standards

could be improved upon. I do not think there is anyone who will deny that, but

in what sphere of action? In what area of life can you not improve upon?

Improvements can be in every part of one's livelihood, every part of one's

living, in government, business, or anything else. But I am reluctant to say:

Take the religious aspect out of the schools. I am certainly reluctant, as I

read the recommendations. I certainly agree with sharing our educational

facilities. I have always agreed with it, but I am not - I will not - stand by

and see the denominational educational system torn apart, as is recommended in

this, because I see this as a black spot. I see this as a dark area for

Newfoundland.

We talk about having all the polls done. What we have to do -

we are free on this side, and I will always be free. What I am saying is that

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to be educated in all the facts of

education, because this is a media deal. This is a media thing. All that the

people out there are being told about, all that is being said is: Look, we are

doing things over and over, and it is costly.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Development on a

point of order.

MR. FUREY: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member's

speech, because I really enjoyed listening to his speech. He is one of the

better speakers over there, and a thoughtful speaker.

Now the hon. member says that he is against the report 'Our

Children, Our Future', and I would be really anxious to hear why he is against

it. Obviously he has done some thinking about it, and he is obviously very

concerned, and he and I share similar views in another arena. I would be very

anxious to hear why he would be against it. Obviously he has thought it through.

It has only been out a little while. But before public debate happens, or

anybody has had input, you want to take that definitive position at this time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

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

MR. PARSONS: In answer to that point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I said that I agree with some of the recommendations. I do not agree

with taking the church out of the schools. That is the part. The denominational

educational system as we know it now, there has to be some changes, but to take

the church from the schools in an overall way - I am not saying that there

should not be changes -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, and he is not saying take them all

(inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: No, but the recommendations here say that as

far as administration is concerned, remove the churches' status as it pertains

to administration. I say to the hon. House Leader, I say to the Minister of

Development, that they should take it easy. What we are seeing out here is the

aftermath, as far as I am concerned, of Mount Cashel and other situations that

have occurred. Some of this, I read it in these recommendations.

I think that the people should be educated in what is

necessary for them to know, and that is overall. What they see here is some

person who writes an editorial to the paper saying that there is a duplication

of effort out here. The duplication of effort is very minor. The only way that

we are going to get a good educational system in Newfoundland is if we resettle

it, if we go back to what Joey did and bring them all into the large areas and

have great schools for the greatest majority. Otherwise we will not.

I am saying to the government now and to anyone who wants to

listen that we should step very carefully as it pertains to the changes in the

denominational educational system. There have to be changes. I agree and have

always agreed with sharing the facilities. That day is gone when we can afford

not to share the facilities. The religious aspect of it, as far as I am

concerned, is gone. My children, my grandchildren, played with all religions. No

difference. All my friends are not Catholics.

So why do we have a distinction as far as the schools are

concerned? I do not see any reason for it. I believe that schools should be

economically viable as far as education is concerned. I do not think there

should be any dispute on that whatsoever. But when they talk about taking the

administration out, that is where my line of thinking is different than Dr.

Williams. I think that we have to be very careful in taking out that portion of

it, the administrative portion. I think that we should step very carefully in

that respect.

I think that some of the changes are good for education in

Newfoundland. Some of the changes will have to come about. What I am saying is,

we look at our own educational system and think it is the worst there is. But

you ask some of the people down through the States, ask some of the people on

mainland Canada, where they have the private schools, and they will tell you

perhaps that we have one of the best educational systems in all of North

America.

Granted, like I said before, and I will stick by it, if we

are to equate ourselves with other parts of the Americas, as far as people are

concerned, we are going to have to take the people out of the smaller

communities, bring them in to the larger communities and give them schools with

the necessities that are necessary today for the students to get that type of

education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which recommendations have you read?

MR. PARSONS: I've read them all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which ones are you (Inaudible)?

MR. PARSONS: The only ones I am talking about concern

administration. Taking the churches - because I feel that if you take them out

of administration it will only be a stopgap for the elimination completely of

the denominational educational system.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean, "administration"?

MR. PARSONS: Administration. Like there is an RC school

today, or a Pentecostal school, or a Church of England school. The people who

are running those schools are the churches, are people from the churches. The RC

board. I do not see anything wrong with the churches being involved in the

schools. I do not see anything wrong with it. I was on the school board for

fourteen years, perhaps longer than any other one here in the House. I did it

for free. There was a great number of people like myself there working for the

community, for free. We did our best. Perhaps our best was not good enough, but

we did our best.

All I am saying to the hon. minister, and I'm saying it to

him over and over, that we have had a lot of controversy over the last three

years as it pertains to our educational system in more spheres than one. I say

to him that out there now there are a lot of people just thinking along the

lines of the - well, the RCs, the way Mount Cashel acted, and the other problems

that we had in other schools, I think that is there and that the people are

thinking about it, especially when people are polled. What I am saying to the

government is, if they are going to spend any money on this, they should

educated the people as to exactly what is happening, not going along with some

myth or someone who writes a letter to the editor saying, This is the way it

should be. They know it all, just give them the facts, tell them how much

over-straddling is done in the schools. Tell them how much emphasis is being

placed -just explain the situation to them; and perhaps, we will see a good -

all the recommendations won't be accepted but some of them will. With that said,

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the leave of the House.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on Bill 16,

the Act To Amend The Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, which, I

understand, is what we are on here. Also, I will follow up on the comments of

the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, speaking about the Royal

Commission Report on Education.

I must say, I was very impressed with the professionalism

shown in this document by Dr. Len Williams, brought forward by the Royal

Commission on Education, the way in which it was presented, the thought and the

depth to which he and the Royal Commission went to study and to determine a plan

for the education of the children of this Province in the future.

First and foremost, with respect to the Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax, I just want to point out that I do agree in full

with the provisions of this tax. I think, in places where it replaces the school

tax and ties in with that, insofar as the removal of school tax from businesses

is concerned, this, in turn, will provide the extra revenue necessary to

accommodate the lost school tax revenue for the government, and thereby, I fully

support this change that is being made to the Health and Post-Secondary

Education Tax Act.

Insofar as this ties into the school tax and educational

funding in the future, it is certainly prudent to mention the initiatives that

are suggested by the Royal Commission on Education. It is a very

forward-thinking document, a document, I think, on which I would support the

government taking an all-out approach.

The recommendations of the Royal Commission Report on

Education, to my mind, in spite of the fact that there are 200-and-some-odd,

will act, in a manner, as one. I think the overall approach taken by the Royal

Commission is that these recommendations should be implemented conclusively,

including all of the recommendations or, at least, a lot of consideration given

to the mechanisms required to put forward all of these recommendations.

I note for the record the idea of removing the denominational

administration of schools; I think it is a good move. I feel that the provisions

in there for regular upgrading, the creation of a professional development

institute for people in the teaching profession, is something that is very

necessary.

Mr. Chairman, as all hon. members here are aware, with the

bringing in of Bill 17, with reference to the restraint of compensation for

teachers, as well as all other public servants, we, as members on the government

side, anyway - I am not so sure about the Opposition side - were asked to meet

with our respective Newfoundland Teachers' Association executives in our

districts. And I sat down and met with the teachers on the local executive of

the NTA, and was very impressed with their concern for students, in spite of the

fact that we do disagree on some of the philosophy on how to deal with

educational issues.

The big concerns they had were the incentive and the overall

morale of teachers and how this will play itself off in the classroom and in the

school system, and again, I have concerns for that, as well. Prior to that

meeting, I wished that the Royal Commission Report on Education had been out,

but it was just following that, on the end of that same week, that the Royal

Commission Report did come out - sorry, it was the week following. And to see

some of the things that were suggested: It did address some of the problems they

had raised to me, problems of teachers not really knowing what to do in certain

cases, wondering how do they reach out to the students they are teaching who are

in any way difficult. The issues we have to deal with in this day and age, how

do they address these issues in a manner that brings them onto the mainstream

the way that students these days think and understand the situation to be in the

world.

There is a lot of despair and negativity associated with the

media. One teacher said he found, when he was asking his own son about the

future, the son had a very, very distraught view of the world and what the world

would be like in ten years because of environmental problems, because of nuclear

warhead problems in the Soviet Union, where, without the solid control of a USSR

central government, there is now a fracturing of the Soviet Union.

These are the concerns that our children these days have

because they are inundated with a huge amount of information. The information

they are receiving now is 100-fold compared to what we were receiving, in my age

group when we were going through school. I remember we had one TV channel, CBC.

You got a good semblance of the news and so on, but you didn't really get a full

broad view until now with what some sociologists and future thinkers have called

the information revolution, where every year, now, we are doubling the amount of

information available for consumption.

If students of the day have to deal with this then teachers

have to be able to teach and deal with the students, and the Royal Commission

Report on Education, I think, addresses this. Now, it would not happen

overnight. If the recommendations brought forward in the report were implemented

immediately, it would take some three to five years, I would suggest, for the

report, as written, to have an impact on the next generation of students. But,

as we see with the strategic economic plan development we have initiated, it

seems that overall, the business people, social development agencies, and others

in the Province are certainly concerned about education and education's effect

on the overall approach that the Province is taking to economic development, and

to the Province's own future - whether it be the economy or other matters, it is

through education that we have to address these problems.

Now, through education, hopefully, we can effect a change in

the attitude of the Province, because what we, as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, think of ourselves, is essentially what we become in the future.

The future of our Province is in our own collective self-esteem, it is in how we

view ourselves. If we view ourselves as never being able to get ahead, then,

essentially, the Province as a whole will never be able to get ahead, but if we

feel that there is, Mr. Chairman, a certain element of hope and desire to better

ourselves and to achieve in the future, then we will get ahead. We will maintain

and have some vision for the future. We have to have this through measures that

this government has taken some fiscal sobriety that we, in the past, have not

had; the sober attitude of this government in comparison to previous governments

of all colours, federal and provincial. We have to pay the piper.

The day of a huge amount of spending is over. Even though

spending is increasing as a percentage of our overall gross domestic product, it

is not. We are lowering what government is. I would even suggest, as hard as it

may be, some time in the future we may have to get away from debt as a

percentage of the overall provincial gross domestic product, and rather than

having debt increasing in spite of that, I think maybe we have to get the debt

cut down. So instead of having 5.2 increasing to 5.3, but satisfying ourselves

to the respect of saying: Well, it is a smaller percentage, maybe we have to

say: Look, we have to get that debt paid off. Operate government back to the

cash can - what you put in, you have to take out. There is x amount of dollars

to operate it on. Government cannot be all things to all people. Government has

to become a servant of the people, and not a people serving government. It has

to reverse the way that it has grown huge in magnitude.

We have to come up with better and more efficient ways of

spending the money that we have available for the public services of the

Province. We have to address the areas of efficiency in government. The way in

which we deal with education is so important, and the ways in which we deal with

our health care, with a population that is getting more aged. The demographics

of our population are - and I suppose the baby boom generation is making a time

shift. Now the baby boomers are getting, the oldest of which now I think are

forty-three or forty-four years old, and the younger people are just around my

age or a little older. So that baby boom is moving through the population of the

Province, and we have to come up with ways and means to support this older

population - the overall demographics.

The Royal Commission Report -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all, I want to compliment you on doing a fine job as

Chairman this morning, filling in for others who have other duties. It is good

to see you in the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very dignified.

MR. MATTHEWS: Very dignified. The only thing is, I do not

know why they do not provide the capes, or the Batman capes as my colleague for

Humber Valley said. Everyone should have to wear that, but then it reminds me of

the graduations in school when I was teaching. Well I guess it is appropriate

because it is a post-secondary education tax, so it is relevant. It is relevant

to talk about education. When we had graduations that for years in the staff I

was on all the teachers would wear their gowns and stuff. I used to often times

feel like the Count on Sesame Street, or whoever he was.

I wanted to have a few words on this Bill 16,

An Act To Amend

The Health And Post-Secondary Education Tax Act, a new tax that was initiated by

this government. At the time they introduced the tax, I thought really that we

would see improvements to health and post-secondary education in the Province,

but we have not seen that. As a matter of fact, we have seen just the opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Call your buddies in Ottawa.

MR. MATTHEWS: Call my buddies in Ottawa. There you go.

See what I mean? That is all you get out of them. Call your buddies in Ottawa.

The Member for Stephenville, now I would say he calls his buddy in Ottawa a lot

more than I call my buddies in Ottawa. He is always calling for advice. Of

course, he has a lot to be thankful for, for his buddy in Ottawa too, I say to

him, that we know about. He has a lot to be thankful for.

Having said that, in the 1989 election campaign, in the

Liberal election manifesto, as has been referred to, there was a fair bit of

attention paid to health care in the Province. I remember during the campaign,

the visit by the now Premier to my area of the Province, in the bus. He stopped

in St. Lawrence. The Premier, the Leader of the Liberal party then, stopped in

St. Lawrence on the bus, and this huge crowd of fifteen people came out to see

him. A huge crowd of fifteen people came out to welcome the Premier to St.

Lawrence, and they stood up on a little soap box there, with the Mayor of St.

Lawrence who was with them at the time. The Mayor of St. Lawrence was there with

them at the time, the Premier and thirteen or so others, and the Premier talked

about how he was going to open all those hospital beds. They had no worry about

the US Memorial Hospital closing in St. Lawrence, because prior to that, the

Royal Commission Report into hospitals and nursing homes costs, had recommended

the closure of that facility and then the Nycum Associates Bed Study had

recommended that, but as the member for the district representing the Town of

St. Lawrence and Grand Bank, both of whom had hospitals and being in the Cabinet

at the time, that I had enough influence and support at the Cabinet table, that

both the Royal Commission recommendation and the Nycum Associates Bed Study

recommendation were rejected, but the Premier shows up in St. Lawrence at

election time and he says you have nothing to worry about with your US Memorial

Hospital, once I become Premier, if I become Premier and he did become Premier,

but what did we see?

I remember very well the first Budget. I went down to the

lockup to have a look at the Budget and my colleague for Mount Pearl, a former

Finance Minister was there with me, and he being more familiar with the Budget

document than I was, flicked through it and he said: Bill, he said, your two

hospitals are gone; and I said: what? He said: Yes. So, sure enough, the same

Premier who just a few short weeks before stood on a soap box in St. Lawrence,

announced the phaseout of in-patient services at the US Memorial Hospital and

the Grand Bank Cottage Hospital, the very same Premier.

Then I head the Member for Stephenville, wasn't it, going on

this morning about the number of hospital beds that they have opened?

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have done that.

MR. MATTHEWS: I should have done what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I should not. I say to the President of

Treasury Board and I want to say this to him very sincerely that the pressure

that the Regional Health Care Centre is under in Salt Pond, is unbearable. You

see, you closed out the in-patient services at St. Lawrence and at Grand Bank

and at the Old Cottage Hospital in Burin, so you had about seventy-five to

eighty beds in those three facilities. You opened up the new facility in Salt

Pond of which sixteen I believe were designated for chronic care, extended care

or whatever they referred to it as, and there were another fifty or so beds for

acute care, we will call it, alright, so you went from eighty down to about

fifty in acute care -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Ah, yes but let me say to the minister that

they had to be accommodated somewhere else and there were not enough nursing

homes to accommodate them, so what have we found at Salt Pond now, the place has

gone just like the other facilities, in that beds are being now taken in the

Regional Health Care Centre in Salt Pond by the same kind of people, I say to

the minister, the same kind of people. The conditions there, there are people on

little cots and stretchers, seriously, and in corridors and inappropriate rooms

for days and weeks sometimes. I mean, the pressure on that facility is

unbearable, so to say that they should close down the others is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh certainly, it would certainly relieve

some of the strain, but all I want to say again to the minister is that when you

look at the waiting list that is at the Blue Crest Interfaith Home in Grand Bank

itself, that you will need four facilities, the equivalent of what is going in

to St. Lawrence, even to reduce that list, and of course we all know that we are

aging and every day there are more and more people who are getting to the stage

where they have to be cared for, so having said that, I want to say that if

there is one nightmare, and one problem that we as a people, as a people - I

mean care for the elderly, I do not know how in the Name of God we are ever

going to cope with it, and I say that for all the right reasons because I am

dealing with it on a daily basis as are other members.

Someone calls you up, they cannot get into a place, they have

to get into a place, there is a waiting list, you talk to the administrator, you

talk to the Chairman of the Board, we all know the problems, very legitimate

cases cannot get accommodated. It is like my question this morning to the

Minister of Social Services about home support which everyone is encouraging,

but if you are going to have people stay in their homes for longer periods of

time when they need some sort of a level of care, four hours, eight hours,

twelve hours, that there has to be some kind of assistance to those people to

keep them there, and as I said, I visited four cases, personally visited their

homes and they are four legitimate cases but you cannot get any home support for

them so what is the choice for them now? They cannot look out for themselves,

they need the care so what do we do for them, what is the answer for them, is

the question?... so it is all related.

But what I am saying is that when this Health and

Post-Secondary Education Tax was introduced, I thought that I was going to see

an improvement