November 9, 1992            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLI  No. 60


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some residents of Sheshatshiu, In Labrador, have allowed the Hydro meters to be removed from their homes and some other buildings in the community. These meters have been replaced with homemade 'jumpers', which enables electricity to flow into the home without being metered. Peter Penashue, the President of the Innu nation and a resident of Sheshatshiu, has said publicly that the removal of the meters has been done deliberately, as part of a plan to stop paying for the electricity consumed by Innu.

These actions raise three specific issues, Mr. Speaker. The first is the safety hazard; the second is the question of payment for the electricity being consumed by the Innu; and the third is the matter of the land claims negotiations.

The removal of these meters, and the way in which Mr. Penashue and his associates have reconnected the power to their homes, creates a very real and substantial safety hazard. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has advised residents of this danger, in a letter to Mr. Penashue and in public service announcements that were broadcast in Happy Valley-Goose Bay throughout the weekend. Hydro will be sending a letter to every customer in Sheshatshiu to reinforce this warning. I want to take this opportunity to stress the risk that has been created by tampering with these meters. I am told by Hydro that what has been done presents a risk of electrical shock, with the potential of causing severe bodily injury, or even death, to anybody who comes into contact with the jumper or an exposed electrical connection.

Electrical safety inspections are the responsibility of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations. The potential dangers were reported to the inspector at Goose Bay last Friday, and he was asked to assess any safety hazards presented by the removal of the meters and the reconnection of the power supply to the individual consumers. Mr. Penashue has refused to co-operate with the inspector. My colleagues and I are greatly concerned about this attitude and its possible consequences.

The residents of Sheshatshiu are still receiving electricity. The steps taken by some of them are an attempt to prevent Hydro from billing individual customers for the power they consume. That attempt will not succeed, Mr. Speaker. The people of Sheshatshiu must pay for electricity, just as does any other resident of Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has installed a bulk metering system to record the amount of electricity consumed by users in Sheshatshiu. Measures are being instituted to ensure the electricity will be paid for.

Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that the unauthorized appropriation of electricity is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Penashue has attempted to tie the refusal to pay for electricity to land claims negotiations. There is no connection between the two. The government began land claims negotiations with the Innu in July of 1991. The federal government withdrew from these in May of 1992. The Innu nation has refused the Province's offer to continue bilateral negotiations. If the Innu can demonstrate a legitimate aboriginal claim in respect of lands affected by the Upper Churchill project, then they will receive the compensation that is appropriate. We have told Mr. Penashue and his colleagues that we are prepared to address their claim for compensation in this context. Actions such as the one they have now undertaken do nothing to advance their claim, nor to create a proper climate for negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Innu Nation is attempting to provoke a confrontation. We cannot condone such tactics and we will not be affected by them. We are prepared to deal fairly with the Innu people, but we are not going to be coerced or blackmailed. The government cannot proceed with any further negotiations with the Innu with respect to any matter until they stop this action. I call upon Mr. Penashue and his fellow Innu to do so at once. I am also tabling a copy of my letter to Mr. Penashue setting out more specifically the government's position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Torngat Mountains, who often speaks for us on these matters, said on Friday in the Legislature, he does not and we do not support the action of the Innu. We have said that publicly on Friday, so we presume that there are no negotiations under way, anyway. I think the Premier said in the statement: We cannot proceed any further with negotiations.

PREMIER WELLS: There are negotiations.

MR. SIMMS: There are? Because I understood, in the previous paragraph, that the Innu had refused the Province's offer to continue bilateral negotiations back in May.

PREMIER WELLS: That is land claims, but there are others.

MR. SIMMS: Okay. I am dealing specifically with land claims. There are no negotiations with respect to land claims ongoing at the moment, is that correct?

PREMIER WELLS: Not that I know of (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay.

In any event, there is not much one can say about it, Mr. Speaker. We think the government has taken the right action in this particular case, and I have no difficulty saying that. As I said, my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains, already made that point on Friday in speaking here in the Legislature. I hope the matter can be resolved through whatever means. I think the government's offer to sit down and talk with the Innu is an appropriate gesture. I hope they accept the Premier's offer made in his letter, at the end, where he says: We are quite prepared to discuss the situation. I think that is the proper way to deal with it. Hopefully they will accept that invitation, and sit down and try to resolve the problems, so they can get on with dealing with the other important issues that affect their people and our people, as well.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to clarify government's policy with respect to mammography services in this Province. Over the past few years, new mammography equipment has been purchased by a number of hospital boards, and equipment is now located in St. Anthony, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Gander, Clarenville, Carbonear, and in St. John's at St. Clare's and the Grace. For a period of time, waiting periods for mammography were short and in many centres were of one to two weeks duration. However, over the past year or so, waiting times for routine screening mammography services have increased. Currently, in St. John's, the waiting period for screening is approximately four months. Elsewhere, the period is generally much less.

Mr. Speaker, there are two types of mammography services. One is diagnostic mammography, which is used for women whom their physicians have found from clinical examination to need additional diagnostic work. In these circumstances, mammography is one of the important follow-up diagnostic tools. The other form of mammography is called screening mammography, where women have mammography performed in an attempt to detect breast lesions before they are otherwise clinically detectable by examination. The patients on our waiting lists are largely for screening mammography. For diagnostic mammography there should be no waiting list, because a physician can initiate the earlier performance of mammography by contacting the radiologist at the site where the mammography is to be performed.

The policy with respect to screening mammography varies across Canada. In Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, screening mammography is targeted on women fifty to sixty-nine years of age every two years. In British Columbia, annual screening is recommended to women over forty. Nova Scotia has a screening program for women aged fifty to sixty-nine, available in Halifax. Quebec and Manitoba have no screening program. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have made no decision respecting screening programs.

Our Department of Health has studied the literature on screening mammography and had planned to wait until the publication of the National Breast Screening Study before developing a definitive policy on the promotion and development of an organized breast screening program for the Province. Research has indicated that screening for women 50-69 may be worthwhile, although new evidence is questioning the extent of the benefit. In the Province of Manitoba a review of research, expert opinion, and experience was conducted by the Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening. They reported that the evidence did not indicate any worthwhile benefit for women under 50, unless there is a family history of breast cancer or unless there are other special reasons. One of their recommendations was that no mammography screening program be initiated at that time. That was December, 1991. The group stated that the evidence to date provided insufficient proof of health benefits to justify a provincial breast screening mammography program. They further recommended that screening mammography be discouraged in women under the age of 50 years who show no evidence of the disease.

However, given the major health problem that breast cancer poses to women in this Province, I want to be sure that an appropriate policy is in place to deal with this issue. I am, therefore, establishing a broadly based committee to review the information from studies to date including the report of the Manitoba Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening, and the results of the National Breast Screening Study when this becomes shortly available, to determine whether there should be a breast screening mammography program in this province and, if so, what age groups, organizational issues, and quality issues need to be addressed.

I will be asking this working group to carry out their task expeditiously, in view of the concern we all have for this very serious disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I raised this issue in the House of Assembly with the former Minister of Health back in June. Now the waiting period at that time was about a three month waiting period. Then it went from a three month waiting period up to a four and a half month waiting period. Virtually in that period of time nothing has been done by the Department of Health to clear up the backlog of people who are waiting to have that vital service performed. Absolutely nothing has been done by the ministry of Health in that area, and now we see the Minister of Health coming into the House of Assembly today and establishing a committee that will probably report, undoubtedly after an election campaign, five or six months down the road, so that it can be put on the back burner again. Well, let me say to the Minister of Health: That is not good enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: The minister says that the benefits of mammography screening are not completely known, are not completely clear. The evidence did not indicate any worthwhile benefit for women under fifty years of age, unless there was a family history of breast cancer. Now, that view, let me say to the minister, is not widely held in the scientific community. It is not widely held at all, Mr. Speaker. A few nights ago everyone in the Province saw and heard, in absolute disbelief, the minister's comments which were to the effect that he couldn't understand what all the fuss was about because mammography is not a reliable means to detect breast cancer.

Now, doesn't the minister know that his view is rejected completely by the people in the scientific community, by specialists in the cancer detection and treatment field? Doesn't he realize that his view is completely rejected by these people? Doesn't he realize that the lives of thousands of women, every single year all across Canada, are saved through early detection, through mammography? Is the minister aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and doesn't he know that in the field of breast cancer specialists have long advocated that a screening program for all women, and especially those in the high risk area, should be put in place immediately?

Now, a few nights ago the minister saw a lady whose father had died of cancer, whose mother had breast cancer and whose sister had died just months ago of breast cancer. She is in a high risk category. Let me say to the minister she is on a waiting list for about a three or four-month period. Now, how does the minister explain that? Shouldn't he at least ensure -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: Shouldn't he at least ensure, Mr. Speaker, if he is going to put a study in place, that the people who are currently waiting for mammography testing and screening in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Did the hon. member have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

Does the hon. member have leave? I have to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pretty well finished up anyway. I would say to the minister, if he wants to -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all I was going to say is, Your Honour clearly made a ruling and my learned friend over there was proceeding, inadvertently no doubt, to defy it. We gave him leave to finish the statement and then he kept on going. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is surely pushing the rules beyond any rational bounds.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Minister of Health open the day's session with a statement with respect to mammography, because for months now the Opposition, as far back as last Spring have been raising questions consistently in this Legislature about the growing deficiencies that exist in our health care system, such as the shortage of specialists, such as the long life-threatening waiting periods for those with heart surgery, the mammography problems that we have just had a discussion about, and many other problems.

I want to ask the Premier, is he aware that the Newfoundland Cancer Clinic, which normally has five Oncologists, I think they are called or cancer specialists on staff, has been operating now for nearly a year since last December at least, with just three cancer specialists, all of whom are radiologists and that we have in fact lost our only specialist in chemotherapy, and I want to ask him very directly, is he aware of any other critical problems that exist in the care of cancer, for patients of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that we have major problems in a number of health care areas in terms of the availability of an acceptable number of specialists. We could only wish that we could afford more, or, we could attract those whom we can afford in some cases where we have difficulty attracting people, so I know that in the cancer field as well as others, there are some difficulties from time to time. Occasionally the numbers will be up to the number required and occasionally, as these people move around from place to place, there may be a period when there is a gap of one or two or more, and there may be as much as 20 or 30 or 50 per cent of the specialized staff that is needed. Those things do occur from time to time. They have also occurred from time to time over the last twenty years as well, and I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that as well so this is nothing unusual. It does occasionally occur from time to time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier, is not aware of anything unusual happening in this area, let me direct my supplementary question to the minister. Can the Minister of Health first of all tell us why we have not replaced the doctors who left a year ago and is he aware of any critical problems that exist in services to cancer patients in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The minister just advised me that the director of the clinic -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - has made him aware of the circumstances, and also made him aware that he has a couple of people presently under consideration.

AN HON. MEMBER: One is about to come soon and one shortly after.

PREMIER WELLS: One is about to come soon and one is about to come shortly after, so the Leader of the Opposition need not be trying to cry 'wolf' again. These are things that do occasionally occur and the government today is dealing with them, I have no doubt, with equal or better efficiency than the former government dealt with them so, this is not unusual, this did not just suddenly happen since the new minister took office. This is a normal -

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the Premier, is that so?

Then, is the Premier aware that the outreach clinics that have been operating in this Province for twenty-one years in Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Burin, have now been shut down for the last two months as a result of the incompetence of this Minister of Health and inaction by the government with respect to the operation of cancer clinics, does he know that, and does he not find that to be a bit unusual?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that under advisement. I have heard no such reports.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the minister's answer. Did he say he was not aware?

MR. SPEAKER: He is taking it under advisement.

AN HON. MEMBER: My God.

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this. Is he aware that the three remaining specialists to whom I referred in my opening question, wrote the Executive Director, Dr. Robbins, of the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment Association, two months ago, September 11th, expressing their inability to cope safely with the services needed throughout this Province? Is he aware, in that letter - is he aware of the letter, I guess, is the first question, which I doubt, but if he is - is he aware in the letter that the doctors asked the foundation to discontinue the outreach clinics because they say if the clinics are not closed in those areas that I referred to earlier, the level of care and the number of patients seen here at the Health Sciences Centre would suffer a major cutback?

I want to ask him again: Is he aware of this letter? Is he aware that in fact these clinics have been closed and people in my constituency, and the others that I referred to, cannot see the specialist now because they cannot travel out there? And what is he going to do about this enormous problem?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as far as that particular letter is concerned, I will have to check into it because I have not seen it. But I did attend the public meeting that was held by the Cancer Treatment Research Foundation last week, where people were gathered, the board, from all over the Province. It was a public meeting. The report for the year was presented, and a number of questions were asked from the floor, including something about the shortage of specialists. The director answered a person's questions, what appeared to be quite satisfactorily.

After the meeting I went with one of the questioners and reviewed the facilities there, and he conveyed to me some of his concerns. I passed them over to the director and we talked about it there, and these concerns seemed to be addressed.

Now it would seem very strange to me that these people who gathered for the meeting of this board, from all over the Province, did not raise that issue to which the hon. member refers; but I will check into it to see if there is any substance to it, and will take appropriate action.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say this is absolutely unbelievable. I have a copy of the letter here that the specialist wrote, and copied his own deputy minister on just about two months ago. In that letter - I am asking him: Is he not aware of this again? - in that letter they say - and this is a very serious charge: Given the manpower deficiencies, and with no foreseeable solution on the horizon, we are unable to cope safely with the same quantity and quality of services as before. In other words they are saying: We have had it. We cannot handle the workload.

I want to ask the minister again: Does he not think this is a serious enough situation that he should immediately get his deputy minister over; find out first of all why his deputy minister did not bring this letter to his attention two months ago. It is a very damning letter, in my view; and will he give the people of this Province his assurance, as the minister responsible for the delivery of health care, that there will be no deterioration in the cancer services provided to people around this Province? Will he give us that assurance?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is forever crying that the sky is going to fall.

I visited, in the past couple of months, every hospital in this Province - every single hospital - including the ones in Grand Falls and Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Including the ones in Grand Falls and Corner Brook, and all the other hospitals -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: - and I spoke with the Administrator of every hospital; with the Chairman of the Board of virtually every hospital, and with the chief medical person there, and these concerns were not raised to me personally. So if they were a matter of concern - and we asked them: What are your concerns? Is there something I should know about, as minister? That is why I am here. They took me around the hospital, and we sat down and talked for half an hour, or an hour, or two hours, and these concerns were not raised. Either they have already been addressed - I do not know - but I will certainly check out that letter; but I believe the hon. member is making his usual activity of pretending that the sky is going to fall in tomorrow morning.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the reason for the minister's type of defence, because he has no answer to the question. The problem is, it is not me who is crying. It is the three remaining specialists who work in the cancer clinic here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the ones who are crying, and they cried in writing over two months ago, or nearly two months ago, to the minister, through his own deputy minister. Now I will wait to see what he gets in terms of a response to these allegations by the doctors - not by the opposition - I am raising them. I will send a copy of the letter over to the minister so he can have a look at it for himself.

Let me ask him another related question: Can be confirm that last year - I am not quite sure how long ago, but nearly a year ago now - the government hired three experts from outside this Province to do an external review of the cancer clinic operations. Can he confirm that? In fact they have had the report. Also can he confirm they have had the report in their hands now for some six months since last April, and will the minister table that report in the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: I will take that under advisement too, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: My final supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just one more on the issue. Perhaps the minister can be excused for not having had a chance to look at the report in six months. I don't know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: But surely he would have had a briefing from his deputy minister, so I would like to ask him this, Mr. Speaker: can the minister confirm that this external review, this report done for his department, has told government and his department that the cancer clinic operations in this province in fact need ten oncologists, cancer specialist, five radiologists and five chemotherapy specialists? Far more than we have now. Can he confirm that? Is he aware of that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will check into that report, have a look at it and see what it says, and then I will give an appropriate answer when I have that done.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health as well. I had a visit today from Mr. Jim Bailey of Deer Lake who checked himself out of Western Memorial Hospital in a last desperate attempt to draw attention to his plight, and in a last desperate attempt, he says, to save his own life. Now he is a candidate for a double lung and heart transplant. He is here today in the gallery. After speaking with him for about twenty minutes I am convinced he desperately needs the minister's help and the minister's intervention.

He cannot get the surgery done here in Canada, but he has been accepted to have it done at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He has been a candidate there for three years for a double lung and heart transplant. Now since he cannot get the surgery done here in this country, will the minister intervene with MCP to cover the cost for Mr. Bailey to have that surgery done in Philadelphia?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for raising this point. I wish he would convey that information to me and we will take it under advisement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Meet with the man.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: I thank the minister for that, and I am sure I don't need to impress upon him the urgency of this particular situation that Mr. Bailey is undergoing. Five years ago, Mr. Bailey needed a double lung transplant, not a double lung and heart transplant, five years ago he needed a double lung transplant. His condition has now deteriorated to the point where he needs a double lung and a heart transplant. He has tried everything over the last three year period to help himself. Everything that can be humanly done he has done over the last three year period to try and help himself.

Now if there is further delay in it, his health is going to continue to deteriorate, and it will remove any hope that he has of ever getting that surgery done. Will the minister - let me ask him today - meet personally with Mr. Bailey today so that the minister can be made more fully aware of the situation, and that he can become more fully informed of the situation and the unbelievable difficulty that Mr. Bailey has had over the last three year period in trying to get attention to this matter? Will he meet with him today?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will take this under advisement and see what happens as far as that -

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: I have recognized the hon. Member for Fogo. Will the hon. Member for Fogo yield to the Member for Harbour Main?

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. I mean this man has checked himself out of Western Memorial Hospital. He has travelled here to St. John's at considerable expense to himself, and a great deal of inconvenience to himself, to see the Minister of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. He knows the rules.

MR. DOYLE: Now the man has been shoved from pillar to post over the last three year period. Now will the minister meet with him today? He is here in the gallery. All he is asking for is five minutes. Will you meet with him?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Simple question!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, no matter how much he shouts it doesn't make any more sense then when he speaks softly. We have a procedure in place for dealing with cases in the Province. This has not been brought to my attention -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is now!

DR. KITCHEN: - before, and I find it very strange that it has not been. So what I would like to do is to check it out, and then, if necessary, make an appointment at a convenient time for Mr. - whoever it is - to see him. But I have no intention of discussing individual cases in this House of Assembly!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognised the hon. Member for Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr., Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. WARREN: Shameful.

MR. DOYLE: Why the hell would he come and see us? (Inaudible) Department of Health.

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear! Right on, Norm.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations. The minister is obviously aware that the latest Stats Canada information for October shows that the adjusted UI rate in this Province increased from 19.2 per cent to 21.6 per cent from September to October. Even more alarming is that the rate from October 1991 to October 1992 has increased to 21.6 per cent from 17.8 per cent, for a nearly 4 per cent increase. Don't these figures point out to the minister the total inadequacy of his employment programs? How does he propose to change this most disturbing trend for this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I appreciate the question, because it provides an opportunity to point out that these numbers, while they are important and meaningful, don't point out anything at all as close to what the hon. member opposite would propose.

This is one of several indicators that make all of us aware of what's happening with the labour market and the forces that operate in the Province at a particular time. The analysis of the numbers that we've had conducted since they were released last week indicate clearly that at this point in time, while there are some large numbers here that some people might look at as startling, there are clear explanations for them, in the sense that some statistical analysis of what's happening with the cod moratorium and people involved in the fishery, in that particular sector, are now finding their way into these figures. Also, that at this point in time, and any time in this year, there is always a factor with the youth in the Province in terms of students returning to school. It sometimes takes a month or so for them to show up in the statistics as well.

I should point out as well to the hon. member opposite that these particular numbers show nothing very different than what happened the last time that there was a recession in the country and in the Province ten years ago, in 1981 and 1982. That in fact these numbers are not by any means any worse than they were at that time when circumstances were significantly different. So it's not an indication or a condemnation of anything. It's just another piece of information that allows us to verify that there are problems and that we're still looking at them.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, what a pile of garbage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Let me ask the minister this then. For youth, Mr. Speaker, aged between fifteen to twenty-four, it has increased from 27 per cent to 30.4 per cent. Furthermore, the minister's own job creation program that he announced a few weeks ago eliminates most of them because of the criteria that he put in: when all other factors are considered, the head of the family will obtain the job.

There was nothing for the people aged between fifteen and twenty-four. Social agencies in this problem also failed to address their concerns. What does the minister intend to do to help that age group, from fifteen to twenty-four? Because he didn't do it in his last strategy.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Again I'm always puzzled that once a month when the House is open the hon. member stands up and tries to point out that these figures mean something, or mean something else, when in fact they don't.

We all recognise, and we've never tried to disguise the fact, that there is a fairly serious problem in the Province and in the country, and it has been here for a couple of years with us now. We've indicated that through our interventions we have designated help targeted at certain people. The young people in this particular category that he references in this question, were not the prime beneficiaries of the emergency employment response program but, contrary to what member's opposite might believe, we never, ever suggested it was. We didn't say that this was an initiative for young people. There are other strategies that try to deal with that, on an ongoing basis, in the Canada/Newfoundland Youth Strategy and so on, that have had successes throughout the year. We have a problem. We take these numbers seriously because they are one of a number of indicators that show us what is happening in the labour market at the present time, but it doesn't mean that the thing is as disastrous as the member opposite would like to try and indicate. In effect, we are dealing with it and we will continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is skating around every question.

Let me ask him this, then: In October of 1991 there were 199,000 people employed in this Province. In October of this year there were 185,000, a total job loss of 14,000 that doesn't include all those that have been affected by the northern cod moratorium because they are not included in the figures. Now, Mr. Speaker, that means a 7 per cent decline in the number of jobs in this Province. How does the minister account for such a huge job loss this past year, when we take out those that have been displaced from the fishery, because they are not included in these figures?

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

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

Again it gives me an opportunity to point out to the member opposite that he should check his research and get his people to find out exactly what is happening, because the information that we have available to us, as the government, is that, in fact, where we are dealing with these numbers they do include a significant number of people who are involved in the fishery and many of them in the moratorium area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if I could continue on with the answer?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I explained to the public before, when the first numbers were released following the introduction of the cod moratorium package, that it was hopeful at that time that those numbers would have no impact one way or the other. But, as has been pointed out and demonstrated in just a week in this Legislature, there are whole communities even in the moratorium area that are not taken care of in any way, shape or form under the moratorium payments. Those people continue to show up in the employment and unemployment statistics as recorded by Stats Canada as do people in the fishery in the rest of the Province.

The main factor, in terms of the numbers that were referred to in the initial question, were 8000 people in the manufacturing sector which, in this Province, is almost entirely driven, or very largely driven, by the fishing industry. So the numbers are impacted very strongly by what is happening in the fishery and there are designations that are not yet clear, on a statistical basis, of how many people in the moratorium area will or will not impact these figures.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets on his feet again perhaps he will tell us how many of the people who are receiving northern cod moratorium benefits are also included in these stats? If his research is so good, what is the real number?

Let me ask the minister this, then: CMHC's forecast for the next year indicates that housing starts in this Province will be down significantly, as indeed they might be across the country. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the larger employers in this Province. Can the minister tell us what impact the declining housing starts will have on job losses in Newfoundland for the coming season, and how many projected job losses will occur? We have already had twenty-seven in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? How many job losses will occur as a result of the decline in the housing industry?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it would be irresponsible for all of us to try to deal with the hypothesis he puts forward as to whether or not something is going to happen in the next year. We have some indications to us as to whether or not those things may or may not occur, and we will keep monitoring that as we go. We certainly would not put in place any kind of a plan right now, predicated on the fact that one group of people might suggest that a certain thing is going to happen in the economy. As everyone in this House would know, all hon. members here would know, that that very same prediction by the same group of people might change next week, next month, the day after and so on. We deal with that information as we get it and as it is firm for us to deal with, and we make our planning on that basis.

I would like to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, while I am standing, in terms of preamble and leading into this question, talking about the number of people who are receiving northern cod benefits that are in these statistics, that is not what I said. I said there are a lot of people in the area that is covered by the moratorium who are not receiving compensation, they are not eligible, and these people are still involved in the employment and unemployment statistics at this point in time, continue to be so, and there are also a number of people there who will have eligibility after their unemployment expires. These people are still in the statistics. The hon. member opposite knows that and it is improper for him to try and mislead people to think otherwise.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a district that has a significant logging population. As my friend from Humber Valley pointed out in the House last week, there are a number of small contractors who have been dealing over the years with the Price mill in Stephenville who found that their wood is no longer welcome. Indeed we have even had correspondence from the Baie Verte area to this effect as well.

We are told that wood is being imported from Prince Edward Island to be used at that mill while our loggers are going idle. I am wondering if the minister is aware of this, and what his views are on it?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware and have been aware for some time that Abitibi-Price have imported 12,000 metres of wood from Prince Edward Island. That wood has now arrived in the Province - or at least the last shipment would have arrived some time in the past few days. Yes, they have indeed imported 12,000 metres of wood from Prince Edward Island.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, a supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the pieces of correspondence we have had on this matter in our office has indicated to us that there is a government subsidy involved in this importation of wood. Would the minister care to indicate if the present provincial government is involved in this subsidy?

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

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, I can categorically inform the member that there is no government subsidy involved in this particular 12,000 metres of wood coming from Prince Edward Island.

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

MR. HEWLETT: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Paper companies came to this Island at the turn of this century based on what you might call a socioeconomic contract, I guess, a long-term supply of wood in exchange for jobs in the paper industry.

If we are going to continue to have them tie up a supply of wood, I would ask the minister, while at the same time not providing the jobs to Newfoundlanders, would the minister not think that the socioeconomic contract that was entered into some decades ago is breaking down, and should that not be a matter of concern to the government?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that the government, is very concerned about the fact that 12,000 metres of wood have been imported into Newfoundland. I suppose we would be concerned in normal times. If all the loggers in Newfoundland were working, or if all the private operators could sell all their wood to the companies, we would probably be concerned then. We have more reason to be concerned on the timing, when things are not good in the industry; when, as the hon. member said, there are loggers displaced; when private operators cannot sell their wood.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of what has happened. We are concerned, and I might tell the hon. member that those concerns have been expressed to the companies, and Abitibi-Price is very well aware of our concern. They are aware of the reasons for the concern; and I feel fairly confident that the concerns expressed by me, on behalf of this government, will cause Abitibi-Price to consider the concerns before they make another decision like that.

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

MR. TOBIN: Twelve thousand metres is a long road.

Let me ask the Minister of Social Services a question regarding the escape of three boys who were members of close custody in Whitbourne. It is my understanding that these three individuals were taken to a mall by one custodial worker. Can I ask the minister why there was only one person responsible for three people going to a mall, and was it a result of government cutbacks that there was only one person present?

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

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the result of government cutbacks. I understand that these three youths were in St. John's for educational purposes, and at the time that they left the custody of the individual you spoke of they were, in fact, in a mall in the western part of St. John's. As of now they have not been apprehended.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister: Is he concerned about the fact that three people who were placed in the custody of the department for which he is responsible are now at large? Two of these boys are sixteen years of age.

We have situations right now where we are dealing with sub-zero temperatures. People are out. We do not know whether they are in or if they are outside, or what is happening, and there has been tragedy in this Province before. So I ask the minister: Will he put in place the necessary people to look after this group of individuals; and can he tell this House how many people are involved right now in the search for these three individuals in the Province?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the member the exact number of people who are involved in trying to find these individuals. I can say that two of the three have homes in St. John's, are from the St. John's area. We are confident that they will be taken back into our care very soon. I appreciate his concern about the time of the year. I don't think, however, that it's a great concern. It is in the St. John's area. I think that unlike being away from custody, if you like, in a country atmosphere away from the urban area, such as St. John's, might be a little different if in fact they didn't have any housing nearby. But as I mentioned, two have homes here in the city. We're quite confident they will be back in custody very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to submit the report of the Select Committee on changing the name of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to thank the members of the committee, including the MHA for Torngat Mountains, the Vice-Chair; the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, the Member for Carbonear; the Member for St. John's South; the Member for Burin - Placentia West and the Member for Menihek.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to also take the opportunity to thank the witnesses who came forward and gave their sincere and thorough presentations to the committee. I would conclude, Mr. Speaker, by indicating to the House and to the Province that the committee makes an unanimous recommendation that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, take the necessary steps to make a constitutional amendment to change the name of the Province, from the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Copies to all the members.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act", as well, Mr. Speaker, another bill entitled, "An Act To Abolish Certain Fees", and finally, Mr. Speaker, a bill entitled, " An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act."

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Residential Tenancies Act."

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Order 1, Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN ( L. Snow): Order, please!

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, l992, the sum of $18,955,300."

On motion, Bill No. 26, carried.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report some considerable progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verte.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred, has directed me to report that it has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

RESOLUTION

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the March 31, 1992, the sum of $18,955,300.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1992 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," (Bill No. 26), read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the order paper.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 2, Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act." (Bill No. 13).

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill provides for a couple of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, the principal amendment being the amendment found in Clause 1 of the bill, which would require medical practitioners and optometrists to report to the registrar of Motor Vehicles conditions which, in their opinion, would make it dangerous for their patients to operate a motor vehicle. That is the principal change introduced by this particular amendment, the reporting of the information. The information that is reported is to be held confidential except for failure to comply with this particular clause.

Clause 2 of the bill provides for increased penalties for the operator of a commercial vehicle who refuses to report to the weigh scales. Also, it provides that where an operator of a commercial vehicle refuses to report to the weigh scales for weighing that the inspector then can direct the vehicle to be removed to a place of safety and remain there until such time as conditions are met.

So, basically, those are the three amendments the bill seeks to have introduced into The Highway Traffic Act. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and await any questions there are on this bill.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to rise in my place today, because I believe this is the first piece of major legislation that has been brought before the House since the House opened.

I was looking at the other one which is due to come in from the hon. minister. I have only one problem with the one that the minister brought in today and that is designating the authority to an inspector. How much of a designation are we talking about?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I want to remind the hon. Member for St. John's South that I know exactly what I am talking about. What does that give that inspector? What authority does it give him? I know you are saying that, okay, if the truck is not up to standard that he has a right to detain that vehicle. But now, if the driver refuses to get on the scales, he certainly hasn't got the authority of a peace officer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: You can't hear your ears.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member asking for order?

Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: You know, when you talk about the inspector, what authority does this give the inspector? Because right now, Mr. Speaker, in Section 6 that is exactly what is happening. I mean, if you go to the weigh scales and there is a problem as far as the inspector is concerned, well, the inspector then has a right to say to you, `Leave your vehicle where she is.' So I wonder what is the difference? What other authority does he have? As far as the rest of it is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is an increase in the fines and, I suppose, that acts as a deterrent.

Clause 1 of the bill will require medical practitioners and optometrists to report to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles a condition of their patient. Mr. Speaker, we have many people, I think, driving who have problems as it pertains to health, especially eyes and whatever. I think that is a good idea. I think that will be well received by the majority of the population. I think it is a good idea and I don't see any problems with it.

The other parts of the amendment - well, the confidentiality to the Registrar, I think it is perhaps a foregone conclusion, that that is in effect right now. Perhaps it was not laid down in the Traffic Act before.

I would like for the minister to explain Clause 2: "The amendment would also provide that an inspector appointed under the Act would be empowered to order a driver of a commercial vehicle who fails to comply with section 175 to drive to a place of safety selected by the inspector." To my knowledge, that is, indeed, happening now. So why the amendment if that is happening at the present time?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Member for St. John's South has no knowledge of it whatsoever. Yes, it is happening right now and, Yours Truly, was at that scales for a reason only two weeks ago. So you don't know what you are talking about. Don't go nodding your head and interrupting when you don't know what you are talking about. I would like for the hon. minister to -

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of concerns with this.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, can the Member for St. John's South restrain himself. He is like a crackie on a chain.

I have a couple of questions here that I would like to address to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding this piece of legislation, particularly, Mr. Speaker, as it deals with the responsibilities that are now being placed upon the medical practitioners, as well as the optometrists, who will be responsible for reporting the files, basically, on people as they relate to any illness they may have that may be deemed to interfere with their - Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to speak but when you cannot make eye contact with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, it makes it that much more difficult.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking for order and ought to be afforded that order - not ought to be, he must be.

MR. TOBIN: On that issue, I would say to the -

MR. GOVER: (Inaudible). I just ask him if he could repeat it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is asking for the space to speak. I am not sure if the Member for Burin - Placentia West has allowed him; although I don't know whether he - he has taken his position.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I only want the indulgence because I would like the member to repeat the question. I didn't get all the question that he was asking and I would like to provide him with the answer, if possible.

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

MR. TOBIN: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is that I understand from reading this, it is going to be made compulsory that the medical doctors, practitioners and optometrists would have a responsibility to report to Motor Registration the clinical condition of a person sixteen years of age or older who may have some medical reasons why he should not have a license. It also says this would provide that the information, which is confidential to the registrar, may not be used in a trial except to prove compliance with reporting the requirement.

I would just like to ask the minister how the government or the registrar will ensure the confidentiality of a person's medical file that is going to be brought before them, because what we have right now, as I understand it, is a situation where every doctor in this Province will have a responsibility to report to the registrar or Motor Registration the medical evidence of any individual whom he has seen, who applies for a driver's license or has a driver's licence whose illness may for some reason prevent him from having a license or for some reason should be on file. I am not objecting to that. My concern is, How does the registrar assure that that information will be kept confidential? I think that is very important.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is.

MR. TOBIN: That causes me some concern.

Another area that I have asked the minister about as it comes up in this is the reporting to the weigh scales. It is my understanding that all trucks now are supposed to stop at the weigh scales, and there is a penalty in place for those who decide not to stop at the weigh scales. So I am asking the minister, is he going to try to enforce that now? Will he enforce the stopping of commercial vehicles at the weigh scales more than it has been enforced? If it is being enforced now, obviously there would be no problem with it. I will also ask the minister if he has any plans to reopen any of the weigh scales that are presently closed down throughout the Province?

But my major concern is the confidentiality of the medical reports containing information on individuals in this Province that are just going to be picked up and passed on to Motor Registration division. We have seen, particularly in the past two years, medical information, MCP, thrown out in garbage bins. It has caused concern for people, and I am just wondering - if the Government House Leader doesn't like it, you know - my question is to the Minister of Transportation. I know that he will address it when he gets up to speak.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to raise some concerns about clause one of this bill, the clause just addressed by my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West. As my colleague pointed out, this clause would impose on medical practitioners and optometrists a duty to report to the Director of Motor Vehicles the name of any patient thought to be unfit to operate a motor vehicle. That wording is 'A medical practitioner shall report to the registrar the name, address, date of birth and clinical condition of a person 16 years of age or older attending the practitioner for medical services who, in the opinion of the practitioner, is suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle.'

Mr. Speaker, this represents a significant violation of doctor/patient confidentiality. I would like to know whether the government has sought and received the advice of its own Human Rights Commission on this provision?

I, personally, think that it is in the public interest to keep off the roads, or to prevent from operating motor vehicles, individuals who are not fit to operate motor vehicles; but it is my opinion that this casts far too big a net. We have now, as I understand it, a requirement for senior citizens to get medicals to renew their driver's licences, and I think that is reasonable; but, in my opinion, this is excessive because it is an unwarranted infringement of the rights of patients, and I am afraid it may have the effect of discouraging people from getting checkups from their doctors, or getting eye examinations.

Mr. Speaker, I would propose to the government that they look for alternatives. If there is any reason to believe that people are operating motor vehicles who cannot see properly, or who are otherwise unfit to drive motor vehicles, are there not alternatives to keep these people off the road?

I would like to know if there is any precedent for this? Do any other Provinces of Canada or other jurisdictions impose this kind of duty on medical practitioners? What is the rationale for this violation of the doctor/patient confidentiality?

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to avail of the opportunity of debating this bill to raise some concerns about the Department of Works, Services and Transportation efforts to keep off the highways vehicles with excessive loads.

My colleague, the Member for Humber Valley, in debate on the Supplementary Supply Bill last week, raised the problems experienced by truckers hauling logs to the paper mills, of being ticketed and fined for violating the existing law which bases loads on weight rather than volume.

As my colleague pointed out, truckers, on taking on loads of logs in the woods, have no means of weighing the load. If the logs are old and dry, a greater volume may be accommodated within the present legal limit. If, however, the logs are newer and greener, they weight more. Truckers, with the best intention of obeying the law, are finding themselves in violation of the limit, and are having their viability as businesspeople threatened because of tickets and fines.

Now, a long time ago, loggers proposed to the government the alternative of having their loads measured by volume instead of weight, by a type of measurement which would enable them, on taking their loads in the woods, to determine clearly whether or not they are in compliance with the law. I would like to ask the minister if he has now in place the volume method of evaluating loads of logs, in the interest of the viability of truckers and loggers in this Province?

In summation, Mr. Speaker, I am expressing my objections, in principle, to clause 1 of this bill, because it represents an unwarranted and excessive infringement of doctor/patient confidentiality. In the case of the provisions of the Act under review dealing with load limits for the highways, I am asking if the minister and the government at long last have responded to the very legitimate request of truckers and loggers to have the volume method of assessing loads of logs in place.

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

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Attorney General.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to respond to one or two of the comments made by members opposite. I don't know if my friend from Kilbride was going to raise the points that I am going to address. If so, my friend and colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will deal with them.

My colleague, Mr. Speaker, can deal with some of the issues raised, he can deal with all of them, for that matter, but he can deal with some of them even more effectively than can I. The question of practice in other provinces, the question of alternatives to this suggested measure and the ticketing situation are matters which my colleague will address, but I would like to say a word or two, if I might, Sir, to try to allay the concerns of members opposite about the confidentiality situation. I take their concerns as having been put forward genuinely and I shall respond to them in that way. I am as conscious, I hope, as any member of the House, of the need to maintain doctor/patient relationship and of the need for a proper measure of confidentiality in a professional relationship. Certainly, the doctor/patient relationship is one of the highest relationships in that sense.

Mr. Speaker, the matter is really very straightforward, I suggest. It is beyond argument, or at least it is beyond rational argument, that there are conditions, medical conditions, physical conditions, physiological conditions, that would prevent a person from being able to operate a motor vehicle with safety to him or herself and with safety to the other users of the road or, for that matter, I guess, the passengers in that person's vehicle. Now, I don't attempt to go through them all. That is not for me, and the bill makes no attempt to do that, quite properly in my judgement. But, for example, one could have a problem with one's eyes and if it is not treated or properly addressed, he shouldn't be driving a motor vehicle. I couldn't drive one properly without my glasses or maybe those opposite would say -

MR. TOBIN: Even with the glasses.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. colleague from Burin - Placentia West just can't resist a line.

AN HON. MEMBER: One of your colleagues said it.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: One of your colleague said that, too.

MR. ROBERTS: One of my colleagues said that, too. The difference is my colleague has driven with me on occasion and the hon. gentleman opposite has not. So, as always, my colleague speaks from knowledge, unlike the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend from Burin - Placentia West thinks that was an accident. My hon. friend should remember the famous distinction between a catastrophe and a disaster. Let me put it to him this way: If the hon. gentleman were to run off the road while driving his vehicle that would be a disaster. If somebody were to bring him back on, that would be a catastrophe.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the bill because there is -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, has forgotten that when he was Speaker, and that was nearly twenty years ago, the first chance he had to get into the House - he did his very best to get in here before then but he had to wait for Mr. John Lundrigan to throw himself, as it were metaphorically, on his sword. I should say to my hon. friend now that he should know that the recruiters for his party in -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is rubbish.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, it was rubbish. I would say that my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SIMMS: Relevance.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is as relevant as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, let me come back, Sir, to the bill. I am trying to deal with a point which I suggest my friends opposite have raised in a serious fashion and I am prepared to try to address it on that basis. But if they want to engage in ragamatag, I am prepared to deal with them on that basis. I have dealt with better than anyone opposite on that basis. They can't hold a candle to the people who were in this House when first I came here in the 'sixties.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend seems worried that they came in the 'sixties. Unlike him I matured at a relatively early age and so got into the House at an early age.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the first point is that it's beyond argument that there are certain conditions that justify the suggestion that a person ought not to be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. Driving a motor vehicle, Sir, in this Province or elsewhere in this country is not a right, it's a privilege. It's a matter that one has because the Legislature authorises people to drive if they follow procedures. The reason for that is so straightforward and obvious that it doesn't need, surely, any elaboration. If you drive a motor vehicle, Sir, you're putting at risk not only yourself and the passengers but anybody else on the road. So number one, there is a condition, or there is a situation.

Number two, the person best suited in the first instance to decide whether any particular individual has a medical problem that would prevent him or her from operating a motor vehicle safely is surely the doctor to whom that person goes for advice and for guidance.

Now, Sir, that's what leads us to the situation where we ask the House for authority to oblige a medical practitioner to report certain information to the registrar. Now that's the first point made by hon. members opposite. If the person is suffering from a condition, in the opinion of the practitioner, that would make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle, he or she, the practitioner, must report that to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Point one.

Point two. We have provided for proper protection for doctors. No action may be brought against a doctor for reporting that information to the registrar, nor should an action be maintained against a doctor. Should there be the ability to maintain it, there should not be the ability to maintain it.

Point three. The report of the doctor for the purpose of subsection (1) is privileged, which means legally privileged. It means it may not be got at in court, it may not be subpoenaed, it may not be brought forward in a court of law for any other purpose. That's the answer to the confidentiality concern raised by the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West, in the legal sense. Now there is also a practical concern. I'll let my colleague address that. But there is all sorts of information in the government that's confidential. The social services files, the medicare files - there are hundreds and hundreds of files that are being kept confidential. The Justice Department has, I suppose, thousands of them up there.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) MCP files in the garbage dumpster (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. I'm aware of it. I've read the reports and I know what happened. I think my hon. friend will agree that that was not only an unique situation, it wasn't a breakdown in the procedures, it was a breakdown in the application of procedures. People were asked to do certain things with certain files. I think my friend for the Strait of Belle Isle, who was then the Minister of Health, made quite a long statement in the House, as I recollect it, last Spring dealing with that. You can design procedures, you can put them in place, but unless people follow them it's very hard to guarantee the result. That was a breakdown of procedures. Was that the one where the doctor was checking through the garbage bags on Christmas Eve? That was that one.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I've heard tell of tough times.

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't hear that one. But the incident with MCP and the garbage bags.... Also, one of the points on that was, the doctor had that information for two or three weeks, as I recollect it, and didn't see fit to go to MCP or to the medical board, or to the minister or anybody else. He just kept it to himself for two or three weeks and then went to the press. Nothing wrong with that. But it rather does lead one to question exactly what the doctor was after. Whether he was concerned with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Looking for his Christmas dinner. What is important is that there is confidential information held by the government, all sorts of it in all sorts of departments. We put in place what we believe to be adequate measures. They have to be implemented and followed before they'll work. We try to do what we can to make people do what they should do in following these procedures. If it turns out the procedures need to be improved, then obviously we're open to changing and correcting them. As far as I know, the information in the Motor Vehicle Registry is adequately protected. Again, my colleague can address that in more detail.

I'm speaking to the legal point. It is legally privileged. One may not go to court and subpoena this information. Say in an action arising out of an accident for damages for personal injuries, you could not go in and subpoena the Registrar to bring in and say - well now let's say the hon. member was in an accident and somebody was alleging: well he ought to have known he should not have been driving. One could not go and subpoena the Registrar and tell him to bring in a report that went in from the doctor. Nor, for that matter, could you subpoena the doctor, in my understanding. I think that is one of the points the hon. gentleman was raising, and I want to be able to assure him on that position.

Mr. Speaker, that leaves only the issue raised by my friend from Humber East, whether it was right and proper to require the doctor to do this; it is, in a sense, a breach of doctor/patient confidentiality.

My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that here, as in so many cases, we have competing rights. There is an example I would like to use which I think is a good one, so I will use it again, that the right to free speech which we all enjoy as part of our ancient heritage and now protected by the Charter, does not give one the right to cry 'fire' falsely in a crowded theatre. Every right must be balanced against competing rights.

Here we have two rights. We have the right of an individual to know that when he or she goes to see a doctor, the doctor will keep this information private and secret, and not go passing it around at cocktail parties, or in the press or anywhere; but secondly we have another right, and that is the right of the person using the road to a reasonable degree of assurance that other people using the road are medically capable of operating the motor vehicles.

Medical information is routinely and properly made available on this basis through hospitals and what have you, and I do not see anything unusual or wrong or different in this.

What would follow is, a report would come in to the Registrar who would then take the appropriate action - presumably go back to the individual and say: Look, we understand you are having some trouble, say with your eyes; you have not taken adequate measures, and what is the situation?

I do not think that is a wrong principle. Indeed I would go so far as to say it is a very proper principle because unless we have this information there is no way in which the Registrar can know that people have these problems. Doctors cannot volunteer the information; that would be improper. The Legislature may require it.

My friend, I think, from Burin - Placentia West, is -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) volunteer this information?

MR. ROBERTS: They should not volunteer the information. This obliges them to do it. There is a big difference from a doctor on his or her own volition ringing up the Registrar and saying: I think you should know that Tom Jones only has one and a half eyes and they are going to fail on him. There is a big difference from that on one hand, and on the other hand the doctor saying: I have an obligation on me by statute.

We have many of these. We spoke the other day about the Child Welfare Act, and we will be bringing in an amendment to make that even more crystal clear - that any person in this Province who has knowledge that a child is being abused mentally or physically, must report that to the authorities. That even overrides solicitor/client privilege.

There are public duties; there are public rights, and you have to balance one against the other. Well we have tried to strike a balance here by requiring the doctor to report the information to the Registrar and then by providing it, it shall be kept privileged, private, confidential and secret.

Mr. Speaker, we think this is a reasonable amendment, and we put it forward in that spirit. I hope that hon. members opposite will, upon reflection, concur and will agree to support the Bill when it is called for second reading.

Thank you.

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

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

After just listening to the Minister of Justice, I do have a question that I want to ask, in particular to the Minister of Transportation, on this particular section.

I think it is fair that the reason behind this particular section, I would call it the Jeffrey House Bill, because about four years ago a particular individual from the minister's district, from Naskaupi district, who was a particular physician, advised motor registration that this particular individual could not operate a motor vehicle, subsequently, his licence was suspended. Subsequently, a second physician gave an opinion and the Department of Transportation still would not reinstate the individual's licence. So the family took the case the legal route, took it through the court. The court then advised the Department of Transportation that they had to reinstate his licence.

I would think this Bill originated from members in the Minister of Transportation's office who was involved with that case four or five years ago. I would like to suggest that the only danger in that particular piece of legislation I see is: do we have to take the opinion of just one physician? I would like to ask the minister, should we not change that piece of legislation to say the opinion of the petitioner or petitioners. I think there should be more than just one opinion.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation if a particular physician says Tom Jones has this problem and he should not have a driver's licence. Would not the minister then say to Tom Jones for the benefit of the doubt: Go to another physician or we have a physician that you have to go to to verify if this is correct because there are going to be cases out there, and the same thing as lawyers, not everybody is going to be correct. I really think there should be more than one physician giving the ultimate answer to the Department of Transportation. That is my only concern with this particular piece of legislation. I believe it is needed. I sincerely think it is needed. In fact there are many, many people on our highways in this Province today that if this piece of legislation was in place would not be operating their vehicles. It is quite possible, Mr. Speaker, between the fifty-two of us in this Legislature there could be one of us who should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. It is quite possible. Therefore, the safety of the others is most important.

I want to compliment the minister for bringing in this piece of legislation, however I think there should be more than one physician's opinion. They should get the second opinion when deciding the rights of the individual.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was up previously and I thought that the legislation was a good piece of legislation and I thought that it was necessary. I still think along those same lines. As far as confidentiality, if there is anyone in our society has an impediment or would endanger any other person on the highways of this Province, then I think that should be considered under certain circumstances. I think that people on the highway who are not capable of performing, who are not capable of driving, then I say that this is a soul searching thing, and I think the doctor, even before this legislation, should almost have a moral obligation to notify the Registrar of Motor Registration. I think there is an obligation and you may find people who differ. I certainly feel that a person's right to confidentiality has to be respected, but I don't think in this case it is absolute.

Again, I only want to say to the minister that I don't think that part in that legislation would be abused. What the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains said about the second opinion, I am not sure but that might be a good idea. Perhaps it is necessary to put it in to the amendment. I will leave that up to the minister, but he does have a point that rather than one doctor or one physician, perhaps the onus should be on someone to say we can have two people make a decision on this particular aspect of it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions that have been raised with respect to this particular Bill I would like to take a few moments to provide some answers to those questions.

I guess the first thing we have to realise is that driving in a province is a privilege, it's not a right. Even in this day and age when automotive transportation is so prevalent there is no right, constitutionally speaking, to have a driver's licence. This is a privilege granted under certain conditions by the Province. There is no doubt, as the Opposition and many speakers have indicated, that the mischief this Bill seeks to correct - the removal of unsafe drivers from the highway - is a legitimate one. In order to have reasonably safe highways, those with medical conditions who would operate a vehicle in a potentially unsafe manner must be removed from the highways for the safety of all concerned.

One member has indicated that this is an unwarranted intrusion into the rights of the individual. I'd like to point out that in the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, all these provinces have legislation which require doctors to report medically impaired drivers. The provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have legislation which says a doctor may report a medically impaired driver. In the Province of Quebec the legislation states that the doctor should.

In all jurisdictions except British Columbia, where there is a requirement to report medically impaired drivers, legislative protection is provided to the physician or optometrist for the reporting. As the hon. the Minister of Justice has indicated, for a physician to report a medically impaired driver to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles would, under normal circumstances, be a violation of the privilege that exists. So in order to allow this reporting to proceed the doctors must be provided with protection for the requirement to report.

It's evident from the surveys that have been conducted of the various Canadian jurisdictions that reporting of medically impaired drivers is the rule and not the exception. This legislation will bring Newfoundland and Labrador in line with the other jurisdictions in Canada. It wasn't viewed by the Government of Ontario as an unwarranted intrusion, or the Government of Prince Edward Island, or the governments of the other Canadian jurisdictions. This is a reasonable limitation, a reasonable requirement, that those drivers who are medically impaired, that their physicians be required to report that to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. I cannot agree that this is an unwarranted infringement of individual liberty. Rather, it is a reasonable protection for those of us who use the highways who are not medically impaired.

The question was raised as to how this Bill came about, and there was some suggestion that this Bill came about as a result of a particular case. I would inform the House that this legislation was, to my knowledge, not the result of a particular case, but in 1983 the Newfoundland Medical Association requested that the previous administration bring in this type of legislation. Apparently when the Highway Traffic Act was prepared in 1988 the previous administration, for whatever reason, wasn't in a position to bring in this particular legislation. In 1989 the Newfoundland Medical Association again requested that this legislation be introduced. As a result of the two requests in 1983 and 1989, and as a result of correcting the mischief that the statute aims at, we have this piece of legislation here before us.

In summary then, the legislation is a result of correcting a serious problem on our highways, and also is as a result of a request from the Newfoundland Medical Association.

Now, the question was raised that the licence of a particular driver should not be suspended upon the opinion of one physician. Basically, under this system, when a physician reports to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that his patient has a medical condition which would warrant the suspension of that driver's licence, the driver is then contacted by the Registrar, and provided with a form which he can take to any physician, be it his own physician or another physician for completion and return to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. Once that information is received by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, before the Registrar will suspend the driver's licence, he will consult with at least one medical physician and receive his advice. That is one physician in addition to the physician who examined the patient; and, indeed, the Registrar has the authority to consult with a medical board composed of more than one physician if he deems that necessary.

So we have, or we could have, three doctors involved in this process. First, the doctor reports, secondly the doctor examines the patient and sends back in the form - that could be the same doctor or a different doctor, so at this stage there is either one or two doctors involved - then, when the form comes back to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the Registrar will consult with at least one other physician and maybe the Medical Board itself, so, at a minimum there will be two physicians involved before a driver's licence is suspended and, in fact, several more physicians could be involved in the decision before the licence is suspended.

Then, if after these reviews, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles feels that the licence should be suspended, the driver has the right to appeal to the Driver's Licence Suspension Review Board, so even after these series of checks and balances, if the driver feels aggrieved, he can appeal to an independent body, The Driver's Licence Suspension Review Board, for a decision on his particular case. So I think we can see from the system that is in place, every effort is made to give a fair hearing to the driver who is reported as having a medically suspect condition with respect to his driver's licence.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, to the confidentiality of the information, as all members are aware, there is a requirement for medicals to be filed for certain drivers in the Province already. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles handles a great volume of this type of information already, and the procedures in place have been so adequate that there has not been a leak of this confidential information. I have also met with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to discuss the procedures to be put in place when this legislation comes in force, and my instructions to him were to ensure that the information he receives as a result of this reporting requirement are held strictly confidential. He is not to assume that the existing procedures are satisfactory even though there has been no leak of confidential information. With this increased requirement, and with the increased volume of information coming in to the Registrar, additional procedures will be implemented to ensure that this information remains strictly confidential.

Mr. Speaker, the question was raised about volume loading versus weighing of the trucks, in particular, woods trucks on the West Coast. The government has investigated this concept of volume loading and weight loading and is prepared to consider putting in place volume loading. In fact, talks have already begun with the paper companies to see if we can put in place the system of volume loading versus weight loading. I understand that these talks are still ongoing between the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the Department of Forestry and Agriculture and the paper companies, to determine if in fact, a workable system of volume loading can be put in place.

But, Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Administration, who did not put in volume loading, this Administration is prepared to consider it and has held active talks with the paper companies to put this system in place.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite may say volume loading may be a long time coming, but they never even took the first step to introduce it. It was this Administration that has taken the first steps to introduce volume loading, and thereby, if an effective system can be put in place, provide some relief to the hard-working truckers of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the section which requires the inspector to direct the vehicle to a place of safety off the highway, this authority is granted by the section on the bill found on page 5, subsection (7), which gives the inspector the authority of a peace officer. The inspector needs the authority of a peace officer to have the vehicle removed from the highway for noncompliance, for failure to report to the weigh scales. That amendment is included in this subsection.

So, with the amendment giving the inspector the authority of a peace officer, that will also give the inspector the authority to have the truck removed from the highway for noncompliance. In certain situations, that is a necessary authority, because if a vehicle is stopped on the highway and the driver refuses to report to the scales, and then decides to park his vehicle on the highway, I think it is a reasonable requirement that the inspector have the authority to at least direct that vehicle off the highway to a place of safety so that traffic can flow freely along the highway while this matter is being resolved.

I hope I have answered the questions, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 13).

MR. ROBERTS: Order 3, Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Farm Products Corporation Act". (Bill No. 10).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a fairly routine piece of legislation, or an amendment, very simple, to "An Act To Amend The Farm Products Corporation Act." I will read it directly: "The purpose of this bill is to amend the Farm Products Corporation Act by repealing and replacing section 8 of the Act such that the corporation may appoint an auditor to audit its affairs. At present the Auditor General is responsible for this duty."

I might point out that this amendment is concurred with by the Auditor General, as a matter of fact, supported by the Auditor General - this recommendation that Newfoundland Farm Products be permitted to hire independent audits.

It may well be, Mr. Speaker, more cost efficient for Newfoundland Farm Products to use outside auditors than to use the Auditor General. It may be more efficient. The Auditor General has a fairly heavy workload and has been recommending that agencies such as Newfoundland Farm Products, or other agencies that she is responsible for auditing, would, indeed, use outside auditors. Now, the Auditor General retains the right, of course, at any time, to audit Newfoundland Farm Products or any other Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, that is basically what the amendment does. It authorises Newfoundland Farm Products to hire independent, outside auditors. As I say, the request is, in itself, recommended, suggested, and concurred with by the Auditor General. I move that we do this for all the right reasons.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly to the thrust of the bill. Other members may have other comments with regard to the Farm Products corporation itself, and some of its business. We have no problem with the appointment of an independent auditor for the Farm Products Corporation. Speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Assembly, in our many dealings with the Auditor General, appointing independent auditors for Crown corporations is becoming very much the trend in government circles these days. This frees up the Auditor General from doing a lot of the leg work that can be done by independent auditors while, at the same time, leaving them free, as has become their recent practice, in doing spot checks of two or three corporations a year and zeroing in to ensure in a detailed way that certain corporations are following their Act, the Financial Administration Act, etc.

One thing I didn't notice in the amendments, as supplied, Mr. Speaker, is any requirement by an independent auditor to perform what it generally known as compliance auditing. I don't know if that is assumed to be the case or is generally given to be the case, but it is not mentioned specifically in this bill. By that I mean that the auditor, when reviewing the accounts and the books of the given Crown corporation, would check to see if the Crown corporation is complying with the Public Tender Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Corporation Act, itself, in the conduct of its financial affairs. In that way, not only do we get a statement of the books of the corporation per se, but we get a more qualitative idea as to the performance of the corporation in the carrying out of its duties and the administering of the public funds it has under its jurisdiction, according to the various Acts of the legislature regarding public funds.

In our recent Public Accounts Committee meetings, Mr. Speaker, we had occasion to have corporations like the General Hospital Corporation, a school board, both public corporations financed with public monies in this Province, reviewed by the Auditor General on a spot check basis, and a number of occasions were pointed out where the corporations concerned did not apply properly or ignored, in some cases, the Public Tendering Act, certain aspects of the Financial Administration Act and, I think, in the case of the General Hospital Corporation, certain aspects of the Hospital Corporation Act, itself. These matters were pointed out by the Auditor General in his more broad and sweeping role of looking after the public purse and, of course, were pursued by our Committee. But I wonder, when an auditor is appointed to a given Crown corporation, if specific instructions should not be written in the legislation to indicate that the auditor should look for compliance with various pieces of legislation applying to that particular corporation, in addition to just reviewing the financial statements of the corporation, itself.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if anybody else on this side wishes to have a few words on this.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I just want to have a few brief words on this Farm Products Act, not so much as it pertains to the private company auditor -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No. Mr. Speaker, that is a good idea. I have no problems with that. That probably should have been done long ago. The problem I always had with Newfoundland Farm Products is that they are always four years behind in their work, and you could never find out what they were doing.

Mr. Speaker, I understand from information that I heard during the Agricultural Fair that Newfoundland Farm Products is in a fair amount of financial trouble as of the last year or so. In particular, the bill for the payroll tax is probably the final nail in their coffin. Newfoundland Farm Products should have had, some time ago, except for its costing a lot of money, a new modern plant built somewhere, but, Mr. Speaker, there is not enough money to build a new plant. So what has the government decided to do but leave them in their own inefficient plant where they can't make enough money to show a good balance sheet, and now they have whacked a considerable - I forget the figure now - but a very considerable amount of the payroll tax on Newfoundland Farm Products. Now, if we remember the year before, agricultural manufacturers and agricultural and forestry activities, I believe, were exempt from the payroll tax for two years, Mr. Speaker, or for the first year of the payroll tax. And last year with the Budget that the Minister of Finance brought in, Newfoundland Farm Products was brought in under the payroll tax system. Mr. Speaker, as far I know, they have a very sizeable staff down there and a very large payroll tax bill, which is just about ready to put them under.

Now, when the minister is closing the debate on this bill, I would also like to know what his feelings are on the future of the hog industry in this Province. We have a very small hog industry in this Province now, that I understand, the minister is trying to close down.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. R. AYLWARD: I understand the Minister of Agriculture is -

MR. TOBIN: Listen, boy, listen!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) chief hog, boss hog. You, listen.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I understand that we do have a small hog industry in this Province and I understand that the government is trying to close the hog industry down. They are trying to get rid of the last -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I don't know, I don't think there are seventeen hog farmers left in the Province, are there? I'm not sure what the numbers would be now over the last three years - there are not very many. But I understand, it is partly because of the Hulan report. When that Hulan report came to this House of Assembly, I said the best thing to do was to throw it in the garbage. I asked the minister at the time how many meetings Bud Hulan had with the Premier to write that report. Mr. Speaker, we can see now that I was right. I know now what Bud Hulan's intentions were from day one when he got paid several hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that report. I understand what his intentions were - to go around this Province to promote Bud Hulan, so Bud Hulan could run for the Liberals in the next election.

It is very obvious that when I suggested putting that report in the garbage, that was where the report should have been dropped. I think it might have been dropped in the garbage, because I haven't heard a sound about it since. There was supposed to be a group of public servants do a review of the report and within a month or so they would report to the people of the Province what the government was going to do about that Bud Hulan report. It is dead, it is gone, it has disappeared. I hope the garbage swallowed it up. I really hope it did.

But, Mr. Speaker, we know now why Bud Hulan was going around slapping backs and shaking hands and doing nothing for the farmers, he was doing it all for Bud Hulan. I thought that from the beginning, but I was willing to work with him, to see if he would try to help out the farmers of this Province. It is obvious whose interests Bud Hulan was looking after, very clear now, since he knocked off a nomination meeting for one of the members opposite.

The fact of what he did to the Member for St. George's shows you a bit more about Bud Hulan than is obvious when you first see him. He is not the only one, there are two more members over there who are going to get knocked off, too. You don't believe me, but it has been lined up by the Premier. You don't believe it, but it's true. I know it's true. I know that one is true, too.

MR. TOBIN: Who are the others?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know one of them, I don't know the second.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, the member is aware of it. He doesn't know that the Premier is trying to set him up, but he is aware that he will be challenged for the nomination by Gussy Roberts, I believe is the man's name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The member's - I hope you beat him. You should. If you're a good member in the House of Assembly you will beat him anyway. You should be able to beat him. But that isn't always the case, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask the minister, when he is closing the debate on this, to give us a rundown on what the future is for the hog industry in this Province. Because Bud Hulan wanted to close the hog industry down. Bud Hulan put a lot of words in there about our disease-free hogs, and that we should be marketing a special disease-free strain of ham and pork products throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Baie Verte might well listen. The Member for St. George's didn't listen to me when I told him. He didn't listen. Now, I told him. He was warned at least eight months before any of this happened, and he wouldn't listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, if he had got out there and done his work when I warned him - and the Member for Baie Verte should listen, although I know he won't listen to me. He is a nice fellow. I have known the member for quite a while. I have known him since the time I was in Rural Agriculture and Northern Development.

MR. MATTHEWS: Gus Roberts is a nicer fellow.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I can't remember Gus Roberts, whether I met him or not. I probably did, but I don't know. But I am giving you the warning now that the Premier is setting you up and you are going to get nailed if you don't get out and do the legwork. This place here means nothing. It is no good sitting over in that corner saying nothing. The Premier wants you in that desk so his buddy is out in the district taking over on you. That is why you are sitting in that corner there and this fellow Roberts is out doing the work. Bud Hulan did the same thing. The Premier paid him $300,000 or $400,000 to do an agricultural report, and he went out and knocked off the Member for - he was thinking early on that he would run against the Member for Humber Valley, but he chickened out of that one, so the Premier told him where to go - what district to look after.

AN HON. MEMBER: They paid his travel expenses (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I don't doubt they did pay his travel expenses while he was out campaigning. He certainly was campaigning from day one. He is the real American politician, the real American, back-slapping, hand-shaking politician - no substance whatsoever to him, but just a big smile, back-slapping and hand-shaking.

Anyway, that is the man who wants to close down the hog industry, and the man who is going to be running for the Liberals in the next general election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I don't know. I am not sure of the other district. I don't know. It is not you. I know it is not you. He is not setting you up. We are trying to set you up.

I want the minister, when he stands, to give us a rundown on what is happening to the hog industry in this Province. Is it true that the government is planning to phase out completely all pork production in the Province? That is the word that the hog industry has. The government probably won't start it until after the next election, but that is what they want to do.

One of the reasons that they want to get rid of the hog industry is that they want the space down in Farm Products to increase chicken production. Now, I understand that the Chicken Marketing Board has been given the word to get out and produce more chicken. 'Go after more quota', I believe, was the quote that was told to me. The Chicken Marketing Board has been told by the department to go after more national quota, to get it here. We can get lots of it. We are due a good bit of chicken quota. The problem is, we have nowhere to process it. We can't process any more chicken here unless we do one of two things: we build a new, modern, efficient plant - which is what should be done, but I know the cost, and it is not easy to come by that kind of money right now; or the other thing we could do to make some space is to shut down the hog industry; and I believe that is what the minister and the department have planned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pat Cowan is being challenged for nomination.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I know there are a couple more being challenged for nomination over there. That was just brought to my attention. I know the Member for Conception Bay South will be challenged, but the Premier is not setting that up, that is part of the business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who set that up?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Nobody set it up, as far as I know. That is just part of the process. It could be the other one, but I don't think so.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Premier wouldn't do that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, the Premier can't afford to be seen as being heavy-handed with the only female person he has on that side of the House. He has to be very careful of how he gets rid of her.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Would he confirm that the Chicken Marketing Board has made requests nationally for more quotas for the chicken industry in this Province? They are eligible to receive more quotas, but if we do get more chicken quota in this Province, what are we going to do with it? You can't process it on the West Coast. You can't process it in Corner Brook, because everything processed in Corner Brook has to be frozen and shipped in to St. John's in order to sell it, and it costs too much. You can ship it in more cheaply from Quebec. You make your best money on the freshest possible product, and that is the product produced in St. John's and sold fresh. There is still a lot of it frozen, but we can't produce any more in Corner Brook because we are shipping all of that east now - not all of it, but most of it. It has to be frozen and shipped in to St. John's and sold at a loss. Most chicken in the Province is sold at a loss anyway.

But if you want to be innovative enough - there was a proposal brought to me when I was minister, a very good proposal. The person didn't continue with it, unfortunately, but it was a good proposal. That person, who is very knowledgeable in the business, in the catering business not the chicken-slaughtering business but in the catering business, that person says that he could make money from enough hors d'oeuvres around St. John's from chicken parts and he would make twice as much. That person, I think had a good idea, but he came across some fairly big obstacles before he got going on it. The Member for Bell Island or whatever his name is, the Minister for Tourism, was not here at the time but he might have some knowledge of what the proposal was, but, Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets up now, I would ask him to just go over the future of the hog industry in this Province and let the farmers know, do not let them keep investing their money in their business if they are not going to be in business in a short time. Let them know that after the next election they are gone, that is all you have to do, so they will not spend their money, they would stay around until the next election and hopefully, at least you would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) before the next election?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well if you do it before the next election, but you will not. You will not do it before the next election you are going to do it after, unless you are willing to take over the debt load and pay off the capital costs for all the farmers, that would not be bad but I don't know that we should be closing down the hog industry in the Province. We do have an unique product. We do happen to have an unique pork product in our Province. We have the only singular, disease-free -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: - whatever it is, we have the only disease-free strain of hogs in North America. Good business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Good pigs.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, well that is the reason we can do this because we are an Island and we have good control over it; government had good control but the trouble is it cost a fortune. You can get a disease-free anything if you want to spend enough money on it, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can grow cucumbers if you want to spend enough money on it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, you can grow then in six or eight days. Who said it the other day, from here to there in eight days? Someone over there. Danny, it was yes. From there to there in eight days is that the cucumber one?...but you can grow anything. You can grow cabbage on Water Street if you want to spend enough money on it, but, Mr. Speaker, the hog industry is not out of whack far enough that it should be closed up. I think you can make good arguments to continue the hog industry in this Province and I am afraid that the government is not going to do it. They are going to get rid of it because of the subsidies that you put in it. People talk about the subsidies that we put into the agricultural industries in this Province occasionally, saying that you can import stuff from Nova Scotia cheaper or you can import stuff from Quebec cheaper, but those places have at least double the subsidies that are in Newfoundland.

In 1985 Quebec's alone on farm grants, was $500 million. That was Quebec's; now the federal government was putting money in those farms too, no wonder we cannot compete. No wonder our products seem to be more expensive, but our farmers happen to be more efficient. Our farmers are doing a better job and they are getting less subsidy on it. So, Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing is trying to promote our product and shipping it elsewhere hoping that some subsidies would be eventually taken off some of the other places, so the minister might give us a run down on the hog industry's future and: is it true that the chicken industry has been directed to go for more quota, and if so, where are we going to process them, who is going to get the quotas? Is it going to be new entrants or are the quotas going to be swallowed up by those who are already in the business, which happens quite often, and hopefully give us some kind of an indication of what the chicken industry's future might be, then, by knowing what the future of the chicken industry is going to be, probably we can guess what the future of farm products will be, the bill we are doing now might be and whether we need an auditor in the future for them or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to address a comment in response to the comments made by the hon. Member for White Bay, and I have to say to him, I cannot tell him with certainty whether or not the audits being done by the auditors appointed by Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation will indeed be compliance auditing.

I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that they will be required to do the same kind of auditing and deliver the same type of service that the Auditor General was delivering. In the meantime, it is a responsible comment and one that warrants an answer, and I will undertake to determine to what extend the new auditors will provide compliance auditing to Newfoundland Farm Products.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few of the comments made by the hon. Member for Kilbride, the former Minister of Agriculture, on whose doorstep most of the problems in agriculture today can be laid. He claimed, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland Farm Products is in great financial difficulty. He claimed, I think, that they are in arrears on their payroll tax. So he has indicated great financial difficulty. Now, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Farm Products have always required a subsidy of about $4 million a year. I mean, the former minister was recommending and approving those kinds of deficits for Newfoundland Farm Products four, five or six years ago. So they are in no more difficulty now then they were when it was the responsibility of the hon. gentleman to answer for and direct Newfoundland Farm Products.

The hog industry: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Hulan didn't recommend the shutting down of the hog industry. Dr. Hulan made recommendations relative to the hog industry. He offered suggestions that might or might not be acceptable to either the industry or to government. So, Mr. Speaker, yes, it is a fact that the Government of Newfoundland is looking at the hog industry, determining the future and what role the government will play in the future of the hog industry. The industry is aware of that, the Hog Marketing Board is aware of that, and everybody who has an interest is aware. Mr. Speaker, when the government decides the role they want to play, or if they make the decisions they are contemplating now, the hon. member, the industry and the House will know.

It is very irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, of the hon. gentleman. He stated that government paid Bud Hulan - he referred to him as Bud Hulan - $400,000 to $500,000 to do the task force report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Hansard will show he stated $400,000 to $500,000.

Mr. Speaker, the whole task force report only cost $800,000. Now, there was a gentleman by the name of Dr. McCrae, a noted gentleman, and there was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Oates who were members of that task force. That is very irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, of the former minister.

Mr. Speaker, talking about Dr. Hulan and his political ambitions and his running where and what he did or didn't do, I am told that the reason the hon. member withheld making his own announcement, that he didn't intend to run again, that he was going to resign, was that he wouldn't make that announcement until he heard what Dr. Hulan's plans were, because he knew he could get elected in Kilbride. The industry in Kilbride, Mr. Speaker, doesn't agree with the hon. member. Most of the hon. member's constituents who are farmers, have come to me and said, or have written, very complimentary things about the role that Dr. Hulan played. So the member is obviously at odds with his own constituency, his own farmers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: Most of them from Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply stating the facts. It is totally irresponsible of a former Minister of Agriculture in this Province. The previous government had recommended a task force on agriculture and it took this government to appoint it. So it is totally irresponsible for any member of that front bench -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: It is totally irresponsible. They should be ashamed of themselves, to make such statements in the House. The height of irresponsibility!

Coincidentally, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: - it is interesting that the only two gentlemen speaking up over there are the two that you would expect such irresponsibility from.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Farm Products - he wants to know if we are going to build a new plant. Now the cost of a new plant is approximately $10 million to $12 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, there was a need for a new Farm Products building ten years ago. Newfoundland Farm Products is just as efficient today as it was ten years ago, seven years ago, six years ago, but the need for a new facility was there. What did that hon. member choose to do? He built a new facility alright, but he built the facility in Mount Pearl at a cost of $22 million. He could have replaced Newfoundland Farm Products for $10 million - half of what he agreed to spend in Mount Pearl to build a Sprung facility. And he stands up and talks about responsibility, and talks about the need for Newfoundland Farm Products to have a new facility. He should be ashamed to take part in this debate.

I want to say to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a step forward in government approving Newfoundland Farm Products' request, supported by the Auditor General, to appoint their own auditors, and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Farm Products Corporation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 10).

MR. ROBERTS: Order 6, Bill No. 19.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act". (Bill No. 19).

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment to the Registered Nurses Act is a pretty straightforward thing. What we are basically saying is that we are asking that a committee of the council conduct disciplinary hearings within the Association of Registered Nurses, rather than the council itself.

Having said that, there is not much else to say.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, we have no great concern about this legislation. The committee to conduct these hearings obviously will come from within the Association of Registered Nurses. I understand the Association will have the authority now to conduct disciplinary hearings.

I am wondering, did this legislation come about as a result of a request from the Association of Registered Nurses, or is government initiating this particular piece of legislation? I am just wondering where it came from.

I have been trying to get in touch with the Association of Registered Nurses to find out if they have any concerns about the bill, but I have not been able to make the necessary contacts; so I am wondering where the bill comes from. I know it is coming from the Department of Health, but I am just wondering if it comes about as a result of a request that was made through the Association of Registered Nurses or is it being done outside of them? Does the minister know if the association has any great concerns about this particular bill? That is essentially the only question I had for him.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise in support, in principle, of the legislation being brought forth. I may be able to answer the hon. member's question concerning the - I do not know where the request comes from, but I would guess it would have to come from the Nurses' Association because I know, from my own experience, the procedure that the Registered Nurses' Association was following previous to this, that disciplinary hearings and allegations made against a nurse that might require a suspension or the revocation of a license as a disciplinary procedure, the entire council of the Registered Nurses Association used to hear these hearings, so you would have twenty-five people sitting down sometimes for two to six days all having to be paid and looked after with accommodations to hear a very important matter. Let me say that when they take these matters on in terms of an allegation of misconduct by a member of their profession, they do take it very seriously and every attempt is made to have all sides of the issue heard, but it is a very cumbersome process. I suppose it may have been okay in the days when very few patients or very few members of the public or even health professionals were inclined to take actions against nurses or professionals for improper conduct. It may have been okay for the occasional time that it would happen to have a full council have a hearing, but it is, I am sure, proving a very encumbersome, a very expensive, very time consuming process, and it takes up so much of the time of the council that it makes more sense to appoint a committee.

Now when I have an opportunity to compare the legislation to the act itself I may have some other comments, but I think it is important for us all to understand that the nursing profession is governed by this act, and the nurses themselves have an independent professional obligation to act in a manner which is becoming of a professional in an independent way, independent, in fact, from the medical doctors, independent from other medical staff. The day is gone, Mr. Speaker, when health professionals and nurses in particular are regarded as the servants or handmaidens of the doctors, they are regarded as independent professionals, have their own professional obligations to pursue. And if they don't act in a manner consistent with their professional obligations, they may be disciplined for it. The unwieldy process of having eighteen or twenty-five people respond to a discipline complaint and hold a hearing is being changed by this bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is appropriate that it be done. The details of the wording that is being used and the other aspects of the legislation are appropriate for a committee, but in principle the bill can be supported by the New Democratic Party.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank hon. members opposite for their comments and to assure the hon. Member for Harbour Main that this is coming from the association. I think that was the only question raised. With that, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 19).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Order 7. Let me say that this is the first bill to be introduced by my friend and colleague, the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting An Avian Emblem Of The Province." (Bill No. 21).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to introduce this bill. It is ironic that after all the years of being in private life that I would bring in a bill concerning the puffin, a feathered beast of Newfoundland. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this Bill 21 is "An Act Respecting The Avian Emblem Of The Province." The act is entitled the Avian Emblem Act. The bird is known scientifically as the - I won't even try it. The puffin is a symbol of the Province and is being accepted very well. It is a bird that signifies not only our strength but our determination to cling on to our Province affectionately known as 'The Rock', and it is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to bring forward Bill 21, "An Act Respecting An Avian Emblem Of The Province", and the symbol is our puffin.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr.Speaker. We support this fantastic initiative by the Minister of Tourism. I was not going to get up but the minister made a comment and I am sure Hansard will record it - again, it is so common and so interesting that today the minister would make that comment after my colleague for Eagle River brought in the report of the name change committee.

Now, we have the name change committee, and we successfully changed the name of the Province from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador. I would hope that the Minister for Tourism will not call the Province 'The Rock' anymore, because there will be more to this Province than what is commonly called 'The Rock', because a large portion of our Province is Labrador. I say to the minister, we support it but, I would hope that he will refer to the Province by its proper name.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words, not necessarily on this act, but I hope it is reported today in the House of Assembly, the contrast of what we are doing now in passing this piece of legislation. Some might think it is important, I do not happen to think it is very important whether we have a tree or a bird or a dog or whatever we have.

Mr. Speaker, in Question Period today, we had three extremely important issues that came before this Legislature and they were trivialized over there. We had questions from the Leader of the Opposition on the cancer clinic and the Minister of Health pretty well laughed at it. He said it is all taken care of, it is all done, you do not have to worry about anything, that is all looked after.

I was in all the hospitals; I visited the hospitals. Did you take a puffin with you when you were visiting the hospitals, I wonder? This is an important piece of legislation that we are doing now. He said: I visited the hospitals and nothing is wrong. Well, sir, I visited hospitals too. I visited a hospital last Spring with my buddy who died of cancer, and don't you tell me what is in the hospitals. Things are not alright in the hospitals, sir, and you better go and have another look.

We had another issue here today, Mr. Speaker, about mammography, the mammography treatment - there was a statement made here today by the minister that he was going to establish a certain - he was going to have a study to study the studies, now that is what he said he was doing in his statement. Things seem to be alright and he does not recommend treatment for women under fifty and he had several other things that he is going to study again.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I tell the minister that I visited the hospital in July with my wife, who had trouble getting a mammogram. Now, Mr. Speaker, things are not alright in this Province. We do not need to bring in birds as symbols of the Province, we need to be dealing with important issues in this Province, important issues that were raised in Question Period. There was a gentleman in this gallery, Mr. Speaker, who was extremely sick and checked himself out of hospital and came to St. John's to plead for some help from the minister, plead for help, and the minister would not even meet with him, the Premier agreed with him that he should not meet with him. The member sitting next to him there, the Minister of Tourism, was telling him while he was speaking: don't meet with him; the Member for St. John's South was making cracks while it was being brought up, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Carbonear was making cracks. And here we are today bringing in a symbol that we want a bird in this Province, we want a puffin or something.

Mr. Speaker, you should be ashamed of yourselves, the whole lot of you! The whole lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves for bringing in this legislation and treating these issues today in such a -

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: - in such a trivial manner. Let Hansard record it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Chairman, I won't take away from the comments that the gentleman is making with respect to hospitals or anything else. I will take strong exception to one comment that he made. That he is quoting me as having sat here advising the hon. member to my right that he should not meet with someone. Mr. Speaker, that is a pure and unadulterated lie, it is a falsehood -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALSH: It's a falsehood and it should be retracted.

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

MR. WALSH: I retract that word, Mr. Speaker, I retract the word. But he knows he's not telling the truth and he knows he's misleading the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. WALSH: Not on the issue that he's dealing with, I'm not talking about the issue. But on that one item, to say that I was telling someone not to meet. He knows that's a falsehood.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no point of order. I've already ruled.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South on another point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Another point of order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member mentioned my name. The only comment that I made to the Minister of Health, when it was raised by the hon. the Member for Harbour Main, was that if it was so pressing, - if it happened to me, Mr. Speaker, if somebody came in to see me with the same circumstances, I would rush that person then and immediately. That was the only thing I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: What is shameful is that the Member for Kilbride gets up and throws out all these innuendoes and statements that have absolutely no fact to them, constantly. It's time the Chair should get after him, Mr. Speaker. What he's saying is totally untrue.

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We've just heard two points of order, and just let me say very briefly, that the truth really hurts.

MR. SPEAKER: There's no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. They mightn't remember what happened during Question Period, they mightn't remember the jabs and the barbs they were making. They know they're not recorded in Hansard so they can deny them whenever they like. I sit here and look across and see who's saying - when issues come up, to see who's trivializing it, to see who's making fun of what's happening in the House of Assembly. The Member for Mount Scio was doing what I said, and the Member for St. John's South was doing what I said, and the Member for Carbonear was doing what I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) and the Premier was (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: And the ringleader of them all -

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

The hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don't care if you send me out of this House of Assembly for the next two weeks or the next six months. No one is going to stand here and use the sanctity of the House to leave the impression that I said what he said. Now I'm going to make the statement and the Chair can decide: the man is lying. I did not say that, I did not make that statement. I'm not going to use any more niceties. He's lying. Simple as that.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the comment. It is unparliamentary. I would ask the hon. Minister of Tourism and Culture to withdraw.

MR. WALSH: Out of respect for the Chair I will withdraw. But the truth must hurt. Because if he continuously -

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

MR. WALSH: - if he continues that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There's no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member can say what he likes and he can get up in the House of Assembly on points of order till he's blue in the face, till he blows up like a puffin, if he wants to. I was listening, and here are my notes from Question Period. When I went over them the Premier was agreeing - the Premier was more or less suggesting to the minister not to meet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Premier was more or less - he was looking back over his shoulder and he was getting angrier at the time. The more that he seemed to be supporting the minister for not meeting with this gentleman, the more the riffraff over there the member for St. John's South, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island and the Member for Carbonear would go along with it because they saw that the Premier was doing it.

Mr. Speaker, bringing in this act today, particularly today I believe, because of what happened in this House of Assembly during Question Period today, shows a lack of respect for the sick and suffering of this Province. It shows a lack of feeling on behalf of the government over there, a complete lack of feeling. It shows a complete lack of caring, especially by the Minister of Health with what happened here today on all the issues, on the three different issues, Mr. Speaker. The most frightening of all, Mr. Speaker, that I found was that the Premier supports it all. That is the most frightening of it all.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak to the bill, to name the puffin as the avian emblem of the Province. The Latin name that the minister will no doubt have reported in Hansard is Fratercula Arctica which to me loosely means the Arctic Brother. I think it is an ironic name for a Newfoundland emblem because, if anybody knows about the puffin, we have a bird that has a great deal of difficulty, if anyone has ever seen a puffin trying to take off, a great deal of difficulty getting into the air. Anyone who has watched the puffin trying to get into the air, they really work hard, they skip along the waves and have a lot of trouble, and when they get up in the air they can't glide, Mr. Speaker. It is no easy ride for a puffin when they are in the air. They are little short birds with wings that are just as short. They can't soar around like eagles. They don't get any advantage from the wind like the seagulls. They have to keep waving their arms like the blazes just to keep up in the air. They are very ungainly in the air.

So as an avian emblem, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we chose a bird that is far more agile underwater than it is in the air. Anybody who knows the deepsea abilities of the puffin will know that it can swim down to almost 600 feet underwater, Mr. Speaker, and it can stay underwater for many, many minutes. It doesn't have the capabilities that we come to regard in birds as being appropriate for flight.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose in some other respects it is a useful bird to have as an emblem for the Province because it is a bird that can endure great hardships and withstand great cold arctic temperatures and still survive. I suppose in that way, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate. It is also a pretty good looking bird, unlike the Member for Port de Grave who has to struggle through life with a less than admirable physog.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I think all things considered, Mr. Speaker, it is probably an appropriate emblem for the Province, and I think that we should support this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TOBIN: We have to keep it going, boys.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of wanting to keep the debate going but I think it would be fairly appropriate if I did say a word in this particular debate because the fact is I was the acting minister at the time. The hon. Minister of Environment and Lands was off on sick leave, and I had the pleasure of making the statement and proclaiming the puffin as Newfoundland's provincial bird.

I might say to you, Mr. Speaker, that over the next two or three weeks, from all over this Province, we had calls and notes complimenting the minister on choosing a puffin as Newfoundland's bird.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another interesting thing came out of that debate. In a period of jousting back and forth with the Opposition, I think I made the comment that the government was selecting a provincial bird, and it was the puffin, but if we were selecting a bird to represent the Opposition, it would undoubtedly be a turkey.

Mr. Speaker, that was picked up by the media, and for the next couple of days they saw the logic. The media saw the logic in it. It was an offhanded comment I made, but obviously the media recognized the logic and the sensibility of it, and I guess they suspected maybe it would be a turkey. If the bird were representing the Opposition, then undoubtedly, we would have chosen a turkey. But we were choosing a bird to represent the Province, the bird that would be the emblem for Newfoundland, and all of Newfoundland agrees with the puffin as the choice.

As much as the Member for Humber East wants to make fun at the puffin, and decry it, and pretend it wasn't a good choice, I want to compliment the minister who first put forward the puffin as our bird. I want to compliment the minister who is now proposing and defending the legislation, and I want to associate myself with that decision to make the puffin Newfoundland's provincial bird.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) because you are in St. John's.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader, I want to apologize. I remember when this bill was originally introduced it was introduced by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, so that is why I said that he was going to close the debate.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to just have a few words to say on Bill 21. After looking at the flash sheet that came out from Stats Canada today, I wonder why we are introducing this legislation when we have such an employment crisis in this Province, that we cannot find better things to do, to talk about, to see if we can do something substantial for the people of this Province, instead of talking about an avian emblem for the Province, namely the puffin.

Mr. Speaker, I think there should have been more important legislation to be discussed today than to discuss whether or not we are going to have a puffin, or a turr, or a bawk or whatever as the avian emblem. That is not important. It is more important that we get on to dealing with matters of the economy.

We have sat here now for three hours, and not one piece of substantial legislation has come forward, with the economy crumbling around our ears day by day. I think it is most regrettable that this is occurring.

But I sense the avian emblem is going to be the puffin. I want to tell the Minister of Tourism, I don't know if he has ever seen them, but there is an island in my district, just off Musgrave Harbour, close to the Wadhams, that is a nesting ground for several hundred pairs of puffin. In fact, I had the occasion to visit there this summer. Perhaps the Minister of Tourism can find some money to put into promoting that area as a tourism feature, that you have guided tours to take them to the area where the bird for the Province is found.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, that is all I want to say about the bill, because I want to say to the Government House Leader that if we can't find more substantial legislation to introduce in the next two or three days, other than an Act proclaiming the avian emblem of the Province, then I don't know why we are sitting here as legislators.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take only a moment to reply to the gentleman from Fogo, because that is all his comments merit. That is all they deserve.

We have sat here for a full week and listened to two hours of debate a day from the other side on Supplementary Supply.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry. I didn't interrupt the hon. gentlemen, but he now wants to interrupt me. Is that what the hon. gentleman is trying? What does he want to say?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I should only say to my hon. friend that if he listened to me he might be further ahead than he is today. He should remember the rule I gave to one of his colleagues over there, 'Better to be silent and have people think you're ignorant than open your mouth and have people prove it.

Now, let me go on and say that the legislative program is moving forward. If my friend for Fogo really wishes to contribute to the debate, then let him contribute to the debate in substance, not the kind of empty pontification we have just heard from him. Thank you, Sir.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it is going to be tough to answer that one, I say. We could read Hansard from thirty or forty years ago and we could all get that. But then, of course, back in those days there was only person allowed to speak in the House, so it would be a bit one-sided reading, I say to the Minister of Forestry.

But he did bring in a Ministerial Statement back a number of months ago, recommending the puffin. The Member for Fogo was right, I say to the Government House Leader. The Member for Fogo is right, and so is the Member for Kilbride, that if that is the government's priority on the legislative agenda, for a province in the state and the mess that we are in, with the fishery, our most important industry, in crisis, loggers and miners out of work, health care system in crisis, people who can't get mammograms, people in corridors in hospitals on stretchers for days trying to get a hospital bed, and the government comes in and calls Bill 21, I believe it is - Bill 21, "An Act Respecting An Avian Emblem Of The Province."

I say to members opposite, it's fine to have a bit of fun every now and then - that helps us get through the process sometimes. But when you look at issues that were brought to the floor of this Legislature today, very serious health concerns with women throughout this Province, having to wait months to get a check-up for possible breast cancer; the unemployment statistics as referred to by the Member for Fogo in Question Period, when he asked the Minister of Employment, and the Minister of Employment really didn't understand the statistics that have been given by Statistics Canada. He didn't understand them, he thought there were people included in the statistics that weren't. That is quite an admission by the Minister of Employment for this Province, as well, if you reflect, that he didn't know that those receiving the Northern cod moratorium benefits were not included in those statistics. Can you imagine what the figures would be if they were?

Then we had the gentleman in the gallery today, a very sad case, as we all know, a very sad case when an individual has to do what that gentleman did today, a man fighting for his life, with probably just a few months left if he doesn't get immediate help, to have to sign himself out of a hospital to come to the seat of government, to come to St. John's, to bring attention to his plight.

MR. TOBIN: All he got was contempt.

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, it is very serious stuff. To see the behaviour of members opposite when the issue was raised here, from the Premier to the Minister of Health to a number of private members opposite - catcalling and accusing the Opposition of being low by bringing it to the floor of the Legislature, when the gentleman himself was in the gallery. The gentleman himself brought the issue to the floor of this Legislature, not the Opposition, because he didn't know where else to turn. I say to members opposite, where would they turn if they were in that gentleman's case? What would they do today? Just think about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go see Norm Doyle.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, go to see Norman Doyle. Perhaps he would, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MS. VERGE: Or did he say: Go home and die?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, he didn't say, 'Go home and die,' I don't think.

MR. TOBIN: Yes he did.

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought he said 'Go see Norman Doyle,' but I may be wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go see Norm Doyle.

MR. MATTHEWS: Go see Norman Doyle. Well, Mr. Doyle happens to be the health critic.

MR. TOBIN: Go home and die.

MR. MATTHEWS: I guess when all else fails you go to see -

MR. DOYLE: When the minister refuses (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: That's what you do.

DR. KITCHEN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health on a point of order.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let go unchallenged the accusations that are being thrown across this House that I would refuse to see any person. Let me state here that no one has asked to see me. If any person in this Province wants to see me, the procedure is very simple, you phone the office, you make an appointment, and I go to see them. It is very easy to see me. I have never turned anyone away yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Let me just say to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, there is no trouble to see him, there is no doubt about that, but the gentleman who was contacted today, a member of this Legislature, was asked to request a meeting with the minister, which he did in this House, and that minister took it under advisement, I say to the minister. He took a request from a dying man under advisement? Have you ever heard tell of the like in your life? - to take it under advisement!

MS. VERGE: Why don't we just call the Premier a murderer?

MR. MATTHEWS: I ask the Minister of Health: Have you met with the gentleman? No? Why? Are you holding it against the gentleman because he came to see a member of the Opposition to ask for help? Members opposite know, when they were in Opposition there were people who came to see them. I see the Member for Port de Grave with sort of a half smirk on his fact. He knows! He knows that people came to see him when he was in Opposition because sometimes people get so desperate that they have no other recourse. What was wrong with that? What was wrong with that, I say to members opposite, that this gentleman so concerned for his life came to this House today and met with the health critic.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No one lied, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. No one lied. What we are concerned about here, I say to the Member for Port de Grave, is we don't want someone to die. We don't want someone to die! And if this government or any members opposite or ministers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: It is not abusing a man, I say to the Member for Carbonear. The gentleman came to see us and ask us to try and help him, and we made a legitimate request. If your government does not have enough concern, feeling and compassion to take care of that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I will tell you something. I say to the Member for Carbonear, Mr. Speaker, that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) member in this House would do the same thing as what you did today! It's slime!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: It is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Carbonear cannot be allowed to sit in his place, disrupt this legislature and call other people slime. What he should do if he had any conscience at all is he would leave the Liberal Party over the issue. A dying man to come to this legislature and be refused by the Minister of Health to meet him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MATTHEWS: A dying man to be refused.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for Carbonear, a lackey is all he is. He is nothing short of a lackey!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: A slack-faced lackey is what you are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. members that the bill under discussion is the avian emblem of Newfoundland and Labrador and it appears that this debate has gone beyond the realm of discussing this piece of legislation, so I would ask the hon. members to stick to the legislation. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I think the puffin is a most appropriate emblem. When I look at some members opposite and the way they puffed up today, puffed up today not only with their own importance but they are puffed up with a lack of concern for the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, a lack of concern. I mean how much worse can it get, there are other cases in this Province just as serious, many other cases just as serious -

MR. REID: Well bring them all in.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well maybe we should bring them all in, I say to the Member for Carbonear, because it seems that is the only way they are going to get any attention from this government, is if they come right here to the seat of government and make their case, because if that gentleman had been like a lot of people, you may have read something in the paper where he had died, you may. Can you blame the man for wanting to stay alive, I say to the Member for Carbonear, that is all the man is asking. He is asking this government, this Premier and his ministers, for help in a very desperate situation, is there anything wrong with that?

MR. REID: The man has been living in the back of a pickup for over a year, where was his member?... he was not helping him then.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, living in the back of a pickup for a year, or where he has been living.

MR. REID: Well, you had better find out!

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already reminded hon. members that we are in second reading of a bill and I think the debate has degenerated to a very low level and I suggest that hon. members stick to the legislation and I would also ask hon. members not to be shouting across the House. It is very unparliamentary.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley, on a point of order.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I could probably carry it a little further but I won't. Not yet. Mr. Speaker, I do not need anybody out of the whole fifty-two members in this Legislature to speak for me, no one, and when I want to speak on behalf of someone else, I do not need any prodding from any other member, and what the hon. Member for Carbonear just said: where was his member, the gentleman was sleeping in the back of a pickup for one full year, where was his member? That is what the gentleman said, where was his member?

MR. DOYLE: Yes, that is what he said. Slimy.

MR. WOODFORD: You go and ask the gentleman tomorrow, he will be in here, where was his member, and I will say no more, even tell the press to go and ask him where was his member -

MR. DOYLE: Tell him to go to Social Services too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slimy, slimy

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order -

MR. WOODFORD: - and what his member did.

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

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why are you attacking Rick, Art?

Why personally attack, Rick?

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think, Mr. Speaker, what we have just witnessed again says it all, says it all. For the hon. member, when that question was raised today in Question Period, that hon, gentleman, the Member for Carbonear, was singing out across the House: How low? How could you stoop so low?

We just heard again what came from the hon. member. Have you ever, as members, heard anything any lower than that, I ask members?

MR. REID: Lower than what?

MR. MATTHEWS: Have you ever heard anything lower than that?

MR. REID: You would not know the difference (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: He is so far down, he is so low, he has to look up to see bottom, I say to the hon. member.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) to get as low as you.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: There you go! Now, Mr. Chairman, here we are talking about a gentleman who had to come to this House of Assembly today to draw attention to his case, and what does the hon. gentleman talk about? What is uppermost on his mind? What is left of his mind - what is on it? What is left of his mind we know what is on it. It is not trying to help a gentleman in a very desperate situation. He is more concerned with bringing in an act, talking about making the puffin the official bird of the Province. That is what the Member for Carbonear is supporting today. It does not matter that there are people out and about the Province in desperate situations, that his government is refusing to provide health care to people in this Province. People are in such a desperate state that they have to sign themselves out of hospitals to come here. No, the Member for Carbonear is supporting a government whose priority this Fall, in the Legislative Session of this House, is An Act Respecting an Avian Emblem of the Province - the puffin.

In ways it is very appropriate. There are members over there, I am sure if we went to all the members we could find a lot who compare to the puffin in various ways. There are a lot of similarities, as the Member for St. John's East said. He talked about the puffin, and maybe how appropriate it is; but a lot of hon. members opposite did not listen to him, and take the message that he gave, and what he said about the puffin, because there was a message in what the Member for St. John's East had to say about the puffin. He did not belittle the puffin. He talked about many of its qualities, its characteristics, I say to the Member for St. John's South who has started to yap again. There was a message in what he had to say about the puffin and its qualities and its characteristics.

It is absolutely amazing. You talk about taking responsibility seriously. To hear the behaviour that is coming from members opposite over such - not this issue of the puffin, but of the issue that was brought to this Legislature today, a very serious issue -

one that you wish you would never have to witness. One that you wish you could deal with immediately. There's only one person who can deal with it immediately, and that's the Minister of health. That's the Minister of Health, who can deal with this issue immediately. Taking it under advisement is not dealing with it immediately, I say to the Minister of Health.

MR. DOYLE: I'll see now about meeting (Inaudible) under advisement.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the minister once more, I ask him again: reconsider the request. We're talking about a human being who may not have long left -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) did he call the office?

MR. MATTHEWS: Who may not - did he call what office? What difference does that make, I say to the Minister of Culture? What difference does it make if he called the minister's office or not? What difference does that make? Does it matter if someone who is so sick, that he didn't call you, if you know his need is legitimate, which there's no one can dispute, that the need is legitimate?

MS. VERGE: Bill, he wants him to have to call (Inaudible) and kneel and kiss his (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: They want to have him bow down, kneel, bow at his feet, and request a meeting with the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did he arrive in St. John's? This morning?

MR. MATTHEWS: I don't know when he arrived or how he arrived. All I know is the gentleman is here, which everyone saw today. He has a very legitimate -

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn debate.

MR. MATTHEWS: Never mind about adjourning debate, I say to the former Minister of Health. Because it's probably more a reflection on you than it is on the current Minister of Health, I say to the Minister of Education. It's probably more a reflection on your neglect than it is on the present Minister of Health. So you should be quiet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I tell you one thing, no one has sent you a mirror yet. Perhaps they should. But I'm doing it out of concern for a human being, a fellow Newfoundlander who needs help. I say to the Government House Leader, it's 4:58 p.m., there's two minutes, I don't know what all the panic is about. But I can understand - you see the behaviour of members opposite, from the Premier down, when they get cornered and they start to get uncomfortable. Is attack someone else personally and try to shut her down, or bring in an act about the puffin. That's what we're dealing with, Mr. Speaker. With that I adjourn debate.

MS. VERGE: Camouflage!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because I've heard better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

AN HON. MEMBER: Joey Smallwood!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader and the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, after those jocularities exchanged with my jocular friends opposite, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.