The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before recognizing hon. members, the Chair is ready to make a ruling on the point of privilege raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader on March 4th. The Chair would like to thank the hon. member for raising this issue because I can assure the hon. member that over the last couple of years things were happening that the Chair was uneasy about. First when we started talking about television broadcast, when we converted into electronic broadcast, we had some vague guidelines set up but since that time with the changing of personnel in the press and in the Speaker's office, we were not always on top of things. So the Chair was glad that the member raised that and it gives me an opportunity to address some of the things which I was concerned about, in addition to his concern.

Now to the script, on Thursday March 4th, the hon. the Opposition House Leader raised a question of privilege concerning the presence on the floor of the House of an individual taking pictures who apparently was not a member of the press gallery but a photographer under contract to the Liberal Party. I have since established that this indeed was the case. The hon. the Premier stated on Friday that if the photographer was present under the auspices of the Liberal Party he was not aware of it and concurred in the remarks of the hon. the Opposition House Leader. I must advise hon. members that it was through the Speaker's office that the photographer obtained permission to be present on the floor of the House but there was a misunderstanding. The request was made at noon on Thursday during the flurry of activity that proceeds the opening of the House. The Speaker's office was under the mistaken impression that the photographer was a member of the press gallery or associated with the press in some way, hence the pass was granted. I might also express that in addition to the hurry, we only do these things twice a year, either for the Throne Speech or the Budget Speech. We try to be as flexible as possible and as accommodating as possible so that we do not leave any of the press out, they might want to update their files, so we try to be as accommodating as possible. The Chair accepts responsibility for the misunderstanding and can assure all hon. members that in future the credentials of photographers and media personnel will be thoroughly investigated before permission is given to them to go onto the floor of the House.

Under the circumstances therefore, the Chair does not consider that this incident constitutes a prima facie case of breach of privilege. Additionally the presence of photographers may be somewhat distracting but this in itself is not unusual on ceremonial occasions and is what we put up with when we give consent to the press to be here. The proceedings of the House were not seriously impeded and the matter, as I have explained, arose through a lack of proper process and not to the best of the Chair's knowledge through any deliberate attempt to mislead the Speaker's office. Under different circumstances the Chair might take another view.

The incident of Thursday last does emphasize, however, the necessity of establishing more precise and comprehensive guidelines respecting admission to the floor of the House. The Chair will therefore meet immediately with the two House leaders and the Member for St. John's East and the president of the press gallery, as is required, to review the guidelines, to fine tune them, to refine them, and expand them to address this particular concern and other concerns of the Chair. When they are done we will circulate them to members and to members of the press so that everybody will be familiar with what our procedure is.

In conclusion, the privileges of members and of the House are one aspect of the question of admission to the floor of the House. Security is another. New guidelines, therefore, should address these matters - that is security and the admission of members along with other media concerns. I hope that we will have this in place by Budget Speech day.

I thank hon. members.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to your point, after such a lengthy admission of guilt, I say to Your Honour that instead of waiting until the tenure of the Speaker, which is normal for the Speaker to be hung, that I move, seconded by the Member for Kilbride, that the hanging begin immediately.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, I am the Member for Humber East.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry. The Chair has to get into being indoctrinated again.

The Member for Humber East, I am sorry.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This March 8th is International Womens' Day and, as the only woman member of the House of Assembly present here now, I would like to draw to the attention of all hon. members the significance of the day.

International Womens' Day is an occasion when women gather to celebrate gains hard won over the past several years - gains which are being eroded by this government. It is also a time to reflect on the reality that many women are suffering under the burden of poverty, fear of violence, and lack good self-esteem.

This is a day when the leader of the government should rise in his place. The Premier is absent now. The acting Premier should rise and announce plans of the government to improve the position of women in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a day when the acting Premier should admit to mistakes made by the administration over the past three-and-a-half years - mistakes -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy for the hon. member's interest with the interest of women of this Province, but she is not making a point of order she is simply making a second class partisan attack under guise of an improper statement. She has every opportunity to do it. The Throne Speech will be called today and so forth. This is clearly out of order and I would ask Your Honour to rule on it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was not aware that the hon. member was on a point of order. The Chair thought we were into the statements by members. That is not a part of our regular routine although in the last couple of years we have been allowing them. Again, it is a procedure that we are operating without any rules. I can only tell hon. members that in Houses where they have those rules the statement is very brief. As a matter of fact I did not start timing, I have not, but I think in Ottawa, and the hon. Member for St. John's East might know this, but I think in Ottawa the time limit is ninety seconds, so I would ask the hon. member to please clue up. Again, I believe, as in Ottawa, we are not suppose to get into debate but make just a simple statement and I ask the hon. member to clue up please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

Your Honour was quite correct in his assumption. I was drawing to the attention of all hon. members the fact that today is International Womens' Day and I was taking to task the Government House Leader and other members opposite for failing to announce their plans of action to improve the lot of women in this Province. I invite him, when he has the opportunity under Ministerial Statements, to give us an accounting of the Wells administration's strategic plan to improve the position of women in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to mention to the House that this being Education Week I was very surprised that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members must be forgetting that we are not on a point of order. We are into this period again where we have not gotten into the proceedings. If hon. members do not want to do it then they are going to have to tell the Chair but that has been the procedure, a procedure we have been recognizing before Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is Education Week and the minister has not recognized the importance of education to the economy of our province and to the economy of this country and the world. We are in an age where natural resources are the basis upon which the economy operates and the focus today is an increasing emphasis on competition between education and skills. Provinces and nations that have been successful in this regard are the ones that are prospering.

British Columbia has changed its focus on human capabilities, and so on, as opposed to based on natural resources and I think the acting minister is very remiss today not to have a statement regarding the commencement of Education Week from the 7th to the 13th. Maybe it is a part of this government's strategies in ignoring and not being sympathetic to the importance of education in society today, in a province where, the literacy rate is far too low, where the job market today is demanding a post-secondary education. The rest of this decade and into the nineties, it is very important and will become increasingly important that education be the cornerstone by which we are going to get out of this economic malaise we are in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: If we are going to have a future, it must be built on education. This very government has stated that education is the focal point of the strategic plan and here today they have not recognized the importance of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member please to co-operate with the House. The Chair has been lenient - the hon. member has been rather lengthy and I think he has made his point.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would take advantage of the same latitude allowed to other members. Let me expose the cheap shots of the hon. gentleman opposite for what they are. The Minister of Education is not here in the House at present, Mr. Speaker, because he is attending a program for the opening ceremony for Education Week, 1993. The Premier was supposed to be there but the Premier is away from St. John's today attending the funeral of a member of his family; hon. gentlemen opposite will concur with that. The Minister of Education is in good company, I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, including the President of the NTA and others, and I think this procedure is being abused by the hon. gentleman opposite, who either knows or could have known, that is where they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: The trouble is, who cares?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the minister is at the School for the Deaf, but hearing hon. gentleman opposite, this could be the School for the Deaf. But, what I would say, as one single member of this House, is that I am not prepared to put with this abuse of the rules anymore and I will say simply, I will object to any member attempting to abuse the rules in this way from here on in, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of an indication from the Government House Leader that a Ministerial Statement will be read on the commencement of International Women's Day and the celebrations associated with it, I would like to also add my voice to the commendation to the House of the recognition of International Women's Day as an important event in the calendar and an important day to remember the struggle that women had and still have for proper recognition and equality in our society. I know the Member for Humber East has made comments about this issue today and in the past, as has this hon. member, and I only regret today, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have twenty-six women and twenty-six men here to show and demonstrate that equality.

I regret that this House didn't pass the resolution that was brought forward last time because that would ensure the kind of equality that is necessary and have the women in this Legislature making the rules, demanding equality and putting equality in place. That is what I would like to see, Mr. Speaker. By the time we are back here for the next International Women's Day, I would like to see twenty-six women here and twenty-six men.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to hon. members today that I have been advised by the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Commission that the Canada Pension Plan offset related to secondary benefits for those receiving workers' compensation payments has been reinstated. The secondary benefits deducted refer to that portion of the Canada Pension Plan payment related to dependent children under 18 years of age.

Since January 1 1993, 134 injured workers have been affected and I am informed that the Workers' Compensation Commission has written to each individual to inform them that deductions that were initially imposed will be adjusted immediately, and retroactive to January 1 1993. However, the Commission will continue the practice of offsetting primary CPP benefits from net earnings as opposed to gross earnings, as had been the practice prior to January 1 1993.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say, I am delighted that the minister succumbed to the pressure from members on this side of the House, in particular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Because, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will recall this is one of the issues that we raised in this Legislature last November and December and which this government said we were wrong about. The Premier said he didn't know what we were talking about. If ever there was evidence needed we have it here today.

Now, I only say to the minister: Why doesn't he go one step further? Why doesn't he reverse the change that he made last fall, which now takes money out of the pockets of workers' compensation recipients, who are suffering all over this Province as a result of the actions of his government last November? Why doesn't he go all the way and make that change, as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: I would like to speak to the Ministerial Statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East is asking for permission to speak to the Ministerial Statement. Are hon. members agreed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The changes that are brought about are, of course, welcome. They should not have been made in the first place, and this minister should not have permitted them to happen, and pass it off as having been done under the guise of the very retrogressive changes being made to the act last fall; but I do say, Mr. Speaker, that what the minister said - the tail end of his comments - is costing workers' compensation recipients money every week and every month from here on in.

The deduction of the CPP from the net income as opposed to the gross income is, in fact, costing them money and taking money out of the pockets of recipients. In effect, Mr. Speaker, they are paying income tax twice on the same income, and that results in each and every worker's compensation recipient who has CPP offset for children suffering from a loss of money, and the minister should do something about that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a quick question, if I may. There was some public statement made that the Budget would be presented on March 11th. I gather there have been some other statements made somewhere along the line that say that date is no longer in force and there is some talk of another date, I think, the 16th or something. I am not sure, but can he confirm it for the House today?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the original announcement we said we would aim at the date of the 11th, which is this Thursday. Since then, we have indicated that we would have difficulty reaching that objective and that it would be a few days later.

We have been working all weekend in terms of getting the numbers together. It takes a certain amount of time to print, and so on, and I will better be able to say, and I think I could make a definite announcement tomorrow, as to which day it would be, whether it would be the 16th or the 18th, but it will be next week, for sure.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, basically, it is a new question, if I might, to the Minister of Finance still, in his capacity as President of Treasury Board or maybe as Minister of Finance. In any event, I will ask the question. We will see in what role he answers it.

We have heard the Premier make some public statements over the last week or ten days or so. A lot of his public statements have caused a considerable amount of surprise and disbelief, in the public forum in particular, by his statement, specifically, that no one in the government had ever suggested rollback in wages for public sector employees. I heard him make those comments and I saw him, myself, with my own two eyes.

Now, on February 12th, the minister wrote a ten-page letter to a public sector union, in which he laid out government's position in a little greater detail. He said in the letter, and I quote: 'An approximate 5 per cent reduction in wage and benefit cost is required. This objective can be achieved by either reducing the size of the work force or reducing wage and benefit rates.'

Now the Premier asked aloud at his press conference: Where is all this talk coming from? This is a bogeyman.

I am sure the minister is familiar with the comments I am making. I want to ask the minister: Why does he stand by and allow the Premier to go out of his way to discredit him, as minister? And I want him to tell us: Who is telling the truth? Is the Premier telling the truth, or is the Minister of Finance telling the truth when he wrote his letter of February 12th?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that there is no contradiction at all. We have stated from the beginning that there is a certain amount of money that had to be - government expenses that had to be cut, and that a certain amount of it would be found in the programs and normal government expenses but, unfortunately, a fairly large number, we are talking in terms of $70 million to $90 million, had to be removed from the total compensation package. Now, obviously, there are ways to do it. We could have a layoff of 3,000 public servants. Our choice is not to do that. We could simply roll back the wage rates or the salary scales. Our choice is not to do that.

We believe that there are other options to achieve that particular saving in total compensation, and I will quote verbatim from that letter: 'Simply stated' - this is under the heading 'Government's Bargaining Position'- 'the government's position is as follows: An approximate 5 per cent reduction in wage and benefits cost is required in view of the Province's financial position, and is essential if we are to continue to provide the basic public services required by the people of the Province.'

Note, Mr. Speaker, '5 per cent reduction in wage and benefits cost'. But it goes on to say: 'Government is prepared to engage in negotiations on all monetary aspects of the collective agreements in order to achieve the approximate 5 per cent reduction. And there is much more in the letter that indicates what government's preferred option is.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is no conflict here. We do not want to take the first option of having mass layoffs in the public service. We feel that would be counterproductive. We feel that rolling back of wage rates and yearly salaries, and so on, is not our preferred option, as well. However, in the total compensation package, through the co-operation of the public sector unions - through their understanding and co-operation, we should be able to find the amount of money to remove from that total expense of government without any very serious effect on the individuals or the service provided by the public servants in the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think, about the only two people in this Province who don't see a contradiction are the Premier and the Minister of Finance. Everybody else in the Province sees the contradiction, and it is clear in the letter. The minister referred to the objective being reached by reducing wage and benefit rates. The Premier asked: 'Who is talking about this? Where is this coming from?' Anyway, I will get off that subject. I will let the minister try to explain it publicly as time goes on.

I would say to the minister that if he and the Premier want to continue to retain any kind of credibility on this particular argument, it would be very wise of them to immediately stop engaging in these silly mind games that they are playing to try to score political points - because that is all they are doing.

I want to ask the minister this: There are many out there who suggest that what the government is up to now in terms of this wage rollback, or whatever you want to call it, is really an unprecedented money grab. It is another matter entirely from what we have normally been used to when you talk about wage freezes. There are others out there, for example, who say - and I will quote Dr. Boswell and ask him if he will comment on it: that 'public employees don't deserve the contemptible and thankless treatment to which this government has subjected them. It is neither fair nor balanced. It is a disgrace.'

I want to ask the minister this question: Does he not believe that public employees, under their plan, are being deliberately victimized by this government with the approach he is talking about?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I share the Leader of the Opposition's concern about what has to be done. I share that concern. However, there is an inescapable fact that we are faced with, an inescapable truth, and that is that our revenues have been reduced. Now that is an inescapable fact. So we have to cut expenses. There is no other choice open to us for a variety of other reasons. We have to cut our expenses. We have no money. So we have to do so in the way that would cause the least possible harm to, number one, the individuals who are working for us; and number two, to the services that are provided in the Province. We have to find a way to do that.

We felt that perhaps the best approach - and this is in line with our general approach to things anyway - is to undergo a consultative process with the public sector unions. We felt that they could perhaps provide some insight into the best way to do this. Unfortunately, that process, in many cases, is not working, although I might say to the hon. gentleman that some union leaders have come forward with suggestions that we have been very grateful to receive and I thank them very much for it. But we are in a process that does not seem to be working to the extent that we would like.

So I just lay out the situation for hon. members. This is the inescapable truth. It is not a comfortable position to be in. It is not one that we want to be in. We would love to be in a totally different situation, especially in the few months before an election.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, he mentioned the magic word at the end, I suspect, 'before an election'. There are many out there who suspect that what the government is up to is a deliberate ploy, an election ploy. The minister may want to comment on that if he wishes. Let me say to him, this: The minister often gets up and tries to paint himself and his government colleagues as the victims of economic misfortune, but the reality is, Mr. Speaker, it is not he and his colleagues who are the victims, it is real people out there around this Province who are having really difficult times.

Now, our own Minister of Education has said publicly that he didn't expect the teachers, for example, to vote for a strike. That was his quote, assuming he was quoted correctly. The Premier has said that the last thing in the world he wants is a strike in this Province, and I believe the minister, himself, has made some reference to it. I think he said last night that the threat of a strike, as a result of the teachers' vote, really doesn't make any difference to him, because they are going to proceed on course. At least, that is the way the story was played. I want to ask: Is he telling the public employees of this Province, then, who are very frustrated and angered, as he would know by now for sure, who feel that they have been beaten into the ground by four rounds of wage freezes and wage cuts and all the rest of those things over the last four years, is he saying to them: It is just too bad, you are going to have to be the victims once again; we do not intend to change our course of action and our plan as we have outlined?

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

MR. BAKER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this is a situation that is shared by every other province in Canada. Instead of going through the consultation process, Manitoba announced simply ten or eleven days off without pay for all the public servants. It is a situation that all provinces in Canada are facing because things have changed. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't realize what is happening in Canada, in North America, and in the world. The situation has changed. Put quite simply, Mr. Speaker, we are presenting to the people of the Province exactly where we stand. We have already taken tough measures to increase taxes. We did that in December. We have already taken tough measures to reduce our normal expenditures. We did that in December and we have done it for three years now. We have taken these very tough measures and we will have to take more tough measures to reduce our expenses, but the inescapable fact, Mr. Speaker, is that of our controllable expenses close to 70 per cent of the controllable expenses are in the wage and compensation category and, unfortunately, that expense must be reduced. But I reiterate once again, Mr. Speaker, that I believe it is possible to do that, I hope, in a co-operative way with the public sector unions so that there is the least possible harm done to both individuals and the service that is provided in the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this: Since when do we, in this Province, have to take our lead from the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Ontario? Look at New Brunswick: They are doing something about it. Their Premier has been very aggressive in trying to attract business and jobs to his province. British Columbia is doing something with their economy. They are taking a different approach. So you don't always have to take the approach from the most negative that is available out there. I want to ask the minister specifically: How does he respond to those people why say that this government wants a strike in order to save money? Is it not a fact that all of these little manoeuvres in the public sessions and at the bargaining table, all these little cons and plays on words that we hear about from day to day, to day, have only one purpose and that is to divide and polarize the public opinion, to divert their attention away from the real problems we have with our economy and from the lack of action that this government has shown in responding to that economy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the situation. I suppose, in the past, when revenues were increasing, and so on, that the previous government would go to bargaining situations to try to trick and pull the wool over the eyes of people and so on, to try to get the best deal possible. I suppose that that was a logical approach by the previous government in times when revenues were always forever increasing. Mr. Speaker, we have taken a different approach. We have told the public sector unions the truth at every stage of the game. We have told them the situation, we described the situation as it exists. It is not pleasant and we admit that, these are not good times to govern. We do not have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around every few months like the previous government did, we do not have that. These are not easy times to govern but Mr. Speaker, we will govern in the way that is best for the Province and we will continue to provide the best service that we can possibly provide to the people of this Province in spite of these difficult times.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, was meant for the Minister of Education but in his absence I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as president of Treasury Board. He is well aware of the financial problems facing the Roman Catholic School Boards and the Integrated School Boards in Western Labrador. The mining companies which paid grants in lieu of school taxes to those school boards have cut their grants by over a million dollars this year and next year. Of course the minister is aware of this particular problem because it was brought about because of a change in tax regulations that this regime brought in. Now, Mr. Speaker, since the government by its action caused this problem, will the minister provide additional funding so that the school boards can help solve this problem?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand the situation. I am not so sure that the connection the hon. member made is correct, however I do understand that that particular area of the Province has been getting a special deal for a number of years in terms of increased numbers of teachers, increased teachers salaries and so on, that have been paid, not out of the public purse but from the company, and now the question is will we as a government provide the extra money that is no longer being provided by the company? The answer, Mr. Speaker, has to be no. We cannot provide the extra salary, the extra teachers to one board in the Province, without providing it to all boards in the Province. We are dealing with public money and the public money must be spent fairly and equitably in all regions of the Province.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would care to comment on a letter that a previous minister of the crown, one of his colleagues in Cabinet wrote when he stated, and I will quote from the letter, Mr. Speaker, the letter was dated March 4th, 1992 and he said, 'let me assure you, the board and the parents, that it is not governments intention to devise and implement a revenue mechanism that would negatively impact upon the revenues currently realized by your school board.' Now, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear there what he says, 'revenues currently realized by your school board -

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

I will just bring to the attention of the hon. member our own standing order relating to questions. I refer the hon. member to our own Standing Order 31 (d) which says, 'Oral questions must not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or preambles of any kind.' So, I will ask the hon. member to try and get to the question without a lengthy reading from the letter.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I merely took a small excerpt from a letter that the minister had written.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the school boards, the people and the teachers in Western Labrador are asking this administration to live up to the intent of what that letter stated. Now, can he confirm for the school boards and the people of Western Labrador that this government can be trusted and live up to that statement.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I hope his ability to quote from a letter is greater than the ability of the Leader of the Opposition when he quoted from my letter - what I read out was a little bit different. I would have to see the whole letter to determine any intent. I am not prepared to accept the hon. member's expression of intent in the letter. I am prepared to say that public money in the school system must be spent equitably across the whole Province. In reality there can be no special deals in terms of teachers' salaries or numbers of teachers with any individual school board.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I will table the letter and I will show the minister a copy of the letter, and it is true that the former Minister of Education did say the exact quote that I read to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of Finance is also aware of the dire straits that the school boards find themselves into in Western Labrador this year. Mr. Speaker, this school board cannot meet its contractual arrangements with its employees nor its teachers; they cannot meet those contractual arrangements with these teachers, what does he propose that they do? What does he propose that they do to meet those contractual arrangements?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could say that they have to solve that problem. However, I would like to point out to the hon. member, I believe it is only today, this morning, that I received a letter from the bargaining unit there or the board there, thanking me for appointing members to a committee to have a look at financing and so on. There are two members from government, two members from Labrador West to have a look at the financing, so there is a committee that has been set up, Mr. Speaker, and I just this morning got a letter thanking me for setting up that committee.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have important questions affecting some of the poorest people in our Province, single parents and children on social assistance. I would like to put the questions to the Premier or the Minister of Social Services, but in the absence of both of them, I will ask the appropriate acting minister to respond.

Why haven't the government admitted that they made a bad mistake early in their term of office in categorizing child support and maintenance as non-allowable income for calculating entitlement to social assistance? Why haven't the government reversed that decision, number one, to restore the incentive for single parents on welfare to try to get support from an absent parent and number two, to make it possible for single parents, most of whom are mothers, to receive an extra fifty to $100 a month, to a maximum of $115 a month, so they can give their children nutritious food and the material things necessary for a good start in life?

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is away from the House on a matter that every hon. member I know would agree as a reasonable matter and a reasonable reason to be away. The Minister of Social Services I am told is home sick, so in his absence let me simply take the question as notice and the minister will reply at the earliest opportunity.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader and Minister of Justice may not know the significance of these questions because he was not a member of the administration when the regressive change was made in October of 1990, but the other members of the government know full well what I am talking about -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with the question please.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

Will the minister admit that his government made a bad mistake when they categorized maintenance and child support as non-allowable income to calculate entitlement to welfare? Will he admit that this has taken away completely the incentive to try to get court orders for child support, and it significantly reduced family income for single parent families on social assistance?

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to advise the House and the hon. member that the full answer will be provided by the Minister of Social Services when he returns.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I last asked this Minister of Social Services, the present Minister of Social Services about this, I asked specifically for his rationale for this policy, he replied that he has no rationale, so I ask the Minister of Finance, is there a rationale for this regressive social assistance regulation? If the minister is correct in saying there is no rationale, will he initiate corrective action to restore the incentive to single parents on welfare, to try to get court orders for child support from an absent parent and to supplement their family income by just a slight amount, a slight amount to the government, but a lot to the poor families affected?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again, I am not willing to accept the interpretation of the hon. member, however, I will say that the full answer will be provided in due course when the Minister of Social Services returns. We'll make sure that a full answer is provided, including the rationale.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health. A few days ago government released a consultant's report on the reduction of hospital and nursing home boards in the Province. It recommends that the numbers be reduced from over twenty down to seven. Let me ask him: how much money does the government intend or expect to save from that reduction in the number of boards? Will any money saved be reinvested or reinstated into the health care system to better serve the sick and elderly in the Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We regard this initiative as an extremely important one by which boards will serve an area rather than a single institution. In that way we believe that health care decisions will be made appropriate for the region rather than just necessarily for the benefit of the particular institution. We also think that there will be some financial savings in this, money that we desperately need to put into our community care and into health, into sickness prevention, because the priorities are shifting. Priorities have to shift from institutional care to home care with the major emphasis being on prevention. We know for example that if we all stopped smoking today in time we'd save about $60 million on our hospital budgets alone.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, in reading that report I note that the report contains no information as to how the reduction in the number of boards will improve the quality and efficiency of our health care system. Does the minister have any details that he can provide us with today on how these boards are going to work and how they'll provide better health care more efficiently in the Province? Will the minister table these documents if he has them so that we'll be made more aware of how these boards are going to work more exactly?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under consultation in the Province now for several years. We appointed a consultant last fall. The consultant has been going around the Province interviewing boards, several meetings with every hospital board, and many of the nursing home boards, both jointly in meetings where several were present, and severally, and receiving briefs. The matter has been under thorough discussion. She's made her recommendations. Now the process from here on in is that we will be taking each region that she recommended separately, and I will be meeting the people involved there to see if there are any adjustments that should be made to her report. We believe that this will be a major thrust forward as far as health care in the Province is concerned.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit strange that the government would proceed with these recommendations without having more detailed information on the impact on the quality of health care and the delivery of health care services, and the efficiency in the health care system. Is the minister really convinced that bigger is better? To reduce it from twenty down to seven will make it more efficient in the delivery of health care? Can he tell us why the report is so vague, and why people should have any confidence after reading that report that to reduce it from twenty down to seven is going to make it easier for the government to deliver a better quality health care in the Province?

MR. SIMMS: Where's the evidence?

MR. DOYLE: Where's the evidence? Why is the report so vague?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We commissioned the consultant. The consultant did a lot of consultation with the stakeholders involved - that's the word they use now for people who are involved in the industry or in the profession - and made a report. The report, unlike quite a number of other reports, is not a seventeen-volume thing. It's an extremely good report, very concise and thoughtful. It's not meant to be the dotting of every i and the crossing of every t, but we believe it is an extremely good report and we will be, in our discussions with the various people, making any adjustments that are required.

I might say that there is tremendous support amongst the hospital boards and nursing homes across the Province. There is some disagreement, as has been evinced from some areas, but it is of a minor nature as far as I know, and if adjustments are needed in her recommendations then adjustments will be made; but basically we believe the report is a very good plan for the reorganization of health care in this Province, and should result in better health care. Since we are in these strained financial times, which could very well last longer than the present year - it is hard to predict - we have to be careful of how we spend our money. This, we feel, will enable a better health care for the same dollar, and more and better health care for the same amount of money.

We really believe that this is a good report.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that what the minister is saying is accurate - that it will provide a better quality of health care for the Province - but again I would point out to him that the report is very vague. I think that was one of the things that came out of the report - it is very vague.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Could the minister indicate to us how much that particular report cost the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, it was not an expensive report. I do not have the exact figures. Perhaps I should check it out, but something like $30,000 comes to my mind, counting travelling expenses and everything.

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

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the public accounts of the Province for the year ending March 31 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: It is not often that the Chair gets a chance to present a report, so the Chair is taking advantage of this opportunity. In accordance with Section 32 of the Auditor General Act I table the Auditor's report and financial information respecting the office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31 1992. Also, in accordance with Section 13 of the Auditor General Act, I table the end report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31. And in accordance with Section 28 of the Auditor General Act and the resolution respecting the appointment of the Auditor General, adopted by this House on March 20 1992, I table the financial information and management letters for each of the Departments of Social Services, and Works, Services and Transportation for the fiscal year ended March 31 1992.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in the House now the departmental observations on the Report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ending March 31 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: On behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a Reply to the Speech of His Honour The Lieutenant - Governor, I present a report of the Select Committee as follows: 'To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, The Honourable Frederick W. Russell. May it please Your Honour, we the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador in Legislative Session assembled, beg to thank Your Honour for the Gracious Speech with which Your Honour has addressed the House.' It is signed by myself, the Member for Trinity North and the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Presently by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently by leave.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on December 17 1992 this House selected a committee to deal with An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act which, at the time, was labelled Bill 67, and you will notice today, Mr. Speaker, it is now changed to Bill No. 1 in the House. I want to just make a few brief comments. On behalf of the committee, I can honestly say that in our deliberations we found that this particular piece of legislation would probably be considered the most progressive conflict of interest legislation in the country, and the other surprising thing about it was the fact that there were absolutely no presentations made to the committee outside the committees members, themselves. This was surprising when we all heard of several criticisms of this piece of legislation in the media lately by certain members from the other side. I do submit this and I want to thank the members of the committee, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Kilbride, the Member for Lewisporte, the Member for Naskaupi, the Member for St. John's East and the Member for St. John's North. I will now submit this report to the House, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Presently by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently by leave.

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 Government Corner Brook Pulp And Paper Limited Agreements Act."

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider the raising of supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of supply to Her Majesty.

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

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow give notice of the following resolution:

WHEREAS the processing sector of the fishing industry is within the provincial jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS the restructuring of the processing sector of the fishery -

MR. SIMMS: Processing sector - yours.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: If the member could keep his exuberance.

WHEREAS the restructuring of the processing sector of the fishery, to take full advantage of opportunities for the manufacture of higher value fish products - and if the member doesn't know, that is secondary processing - is our best prospect to rebuild the economic value of the fishery; and

Whereas the Provincial Government has done nothing to develop the potential in the processing sector for new investment and job creation;

BE IT RESOLVED that the government immediately determine the amount of excess capacity in our current processing plant inventory, and how much of that capacity can be converted into value-added secondary processing; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government immediately put a plan in place to help primary processors and new investors diversify into the production of value-added products including the utilization of by-products and underutilized species.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move the following motion:

WHEREAS there is a great possibility that a major oil spill will take place off our coast unless changes are made with regard to oil tanker safety; and

WHEREAS an oil spill would have devastating effects on the marine environment and the economy of this Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the Federal Government to take immediate action to increase inspections of foreign ships, improve emergency preparedness and to become more aggressive, both in the areas under jurisdiction and in the international level of oil spills.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS school bus transportation is provided by the Provincial Government to the Department of Education to students who live a long distance from their school, at no direct cost to students or their parents; and

WHEREAS, in the City of St. John's, where the St. John's Transportation Commission provides a bus service, school buses paid for by the Department of Education may not operate, and students or their parents must directly pay the total cost of school bus transportation; and

WHEREAS this situation creates economic hardship to many families and results in loss of school time, lack of safety, and other problems for students whose parents cannot afford to pay bus fares; and

WHEREAS this situation is unfair and results in inequality of treatment and discrimination against St. John's students and their families;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on record as supporting equality of treatment of all school students and their families regarding school bus transportation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to revise school bus transportation to students within the City of St. John's on the same basis as provided throughout the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Department Of Tourism And Culture".

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, may I give two or three notices, in fact five, to be precise, on behalf of colleagues of mine who are absent.

On behalf of the Minister of Education:

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act".

On behalf of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation:

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law In The Province Respecting Rail Service".

On behalf of the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs:

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Taxation Of Utilities And Cable Television Companies Act".

Again, on behalf of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs:

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991".

And on behalf of the Minister of Environment and Lands:

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On The Environment".

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. GREENING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present to this hon. House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GREENING: - a petition on behalf of 365 residents of the community of Bloomfield, Bonavista Bay.

I would like to explain to the House that this petition was not, at first, properly addressed to the House. Since then, it has been corrected and initialled by three members of the Save Our Forest group. The prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly: In the interest of tradition, and preserving our forest and wildlife for our continued use and enjoyment we, the undersigned, are opposed to clear-cutting within a five-mile, eight-kilometre radius of our community of Bloomfield.

Mr. Speaker, approximately a year ago, members of the Save Our Forest group and myself met with the hon. the Minister of Forestry and expressed our concern over the way the department is managing, or mismanaging, the industry in Terra Nova district, in particular, the area between the Town of Port Blandford and the community of Winterbrook.

The perception was that the group wanted to put a stop to clear-cutting. The fact of the matter is, the petitioners and the commercial operators have one goal, that is, to protect a properly managed forest industry.

The Save Our Forest group not only represents the district of Terra Nova, but also the districts of Bonavista South and Trinity North. The answer is to provide a mutual buffer zone around the communities, and a five-mile radius is suggested where applicable. In order to obtain this buffer zone, the residents of the three districts would like to have input into the future management of the industry. Therefore, I would suggest that the hon. the Minister of Forestry attend a public forum, preferably in the district of Terra Nova, with the petitioners and with the commercial operators, and discuss our concerns and hear our suggestions.

The forest industry has been a traditional way of living for domestic cutters and commercial operators, and I believe it can continue in the same manner if the hon. the Minister of Forestry would agree to meet with both groups and let the residents have input in the future management of the industry.

Mr. Speaker, we don't want to see happen to the forest industry what has happened to the fishery. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for Terra Nova, and I would suggest to all hon. members that this group must be listened to. The voice of the fisherman was ignored so many years in this Province, and I think in our forest industry we also have to look at the potential of another Northern cod crisis in the forestry of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture introduced to this House of Assembly a couple of weeks ago the Twenty-Year Forestry Development Plan, and in this plan, a very important paragraph, Chapter 4, analyzes the timber supply and demand in this Province. It spells a great foreboding if the forest resources of this Province are not managed properly.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to start now and involve the users of that forest, the loggers, the wood cutters, the private operators, the public generally, in this plan. It is not satisfactory to leave it to bureaucrats and scientists. The people who are dependent upon this forest must have a say, and not just a meeting with the minister - and I am sure the minister must meet with them - but to set up a process whereby the people who are users of this forest are, in fact, involved in the management, involved in the choices that are being made.

Mr. Speaker, the simple request of this particular petition talks about no clear-cutting around communities. That is an important part and an important demand of this group, but what this group is all about is far more than that, it is the preservation of our forestry resources, the maximization of the use of the resources, and to ensure that any forestry activity involves the sustained ability of the forest and, not only that, the sustained ability of the people who live on them and the communities that live on them. That has to be the primary object of any forest policy.

There is a lot of debate and a lot of argument and a lot of choices that have to be made in any forest management or any resource management use, but if we do not - right now - establish a policy that involves people in these decisions, and allows the facts to be out and on the table, and allows the participants to have a say, then we are going to have the same kind of problem with our forestry as we have with our fisheries and with the communities that are dependent upon the fishery.

There are great arguments about clear-cutting in general, about forestry methods in general, and also about environmental process. We know that the forest management plans of this government are taken outside of the Environmental Assessment Act. That worries me, Mr. Speaker, and it should worry every hon. member here, that they have some special rules to govern themselves. We know what happens when clear-cutting has taken place in this Province close to streams, close to river beds - vast areas clear-cut. Soil erosion and problems with our rivers and streams and silting have resulted.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very big issue. It is only recently that the government has even started to address it. But it is a very big issue and important for our future, and I urge all hon. members to listen and listen well to the people who are using and dependent upon our forests, and see to it that proper forest management procedures are put in place, and that the people and the communities dependent on this forest have a direct and ongoing say in the use of that resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a few words on the petition so ably presented by the hon. the Member for Terra Nova. Let me, for a couple of minutes, talk about clear-cutting. Because there is a real danger that we will get the same kind of attention in Newfoundland for clear-cutting as B.C. or Northern Ontario.

Everyone should know that just because of the geography of Newfoundland, with the lakes, bogs, rivers and the barrens, Newfoundland will never, if we cut every tree in Newfoundland, practically, by clear-cut method, be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as with the major clear-cuts in B.C. and Northern Ontario and other places.

So let's know what we are talking about clear-cutting. When the Department of Forestry issues a permit to an operator, whether it is Abitibi-Price or Kruger, or whether it is a major sawmiller, the odds are he is going into a stand of timber with the same age class. The odds are, we are going to be demanding 100 per cent utilization of that resource. So, clear-cutting is an accepted tool in good forest management when you know you are working with forest of the same age class. You cut it all down, and it regenerates itself.

Let me tell the hon. the Member for Terra Nova and the hon. the Member for St. John's East, they are both, as am I, and as probably a lot of other people in Newfoundland, with this issue, on the horns of a dilemma. There are twenty-eight commercial operators on the Bonavista Peninsula. It is hard to get a number of jobs those operators support, but it is somewhere in the vicinity of 300 to 400, full-time part-time. Twenty of those twenty-eight are operating within an eight-kilometre radius of a community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you see the dilemma. I can say: No more clear-cutting on the Bonavista Peninsula within eight kilometres of a community, and if I do, I effectively shut down the sawmilling and pulping industry on the Bonavista Peninsula. Maybe the hon. the Member for St. John's East will be just as quick to get to his feet next week when a petition arrives here with 300 to 400 names on it from people who are earning their living, and the community which sees the commercial harvesting of wood on the Bonavista Peninsula as their economic base. So the hon. member should be ready.

Let me ask the hon. member this: If I were to consider as minister acceding to the request and declare no more clear-cutting, which would mean, in effect, no more commercial harvesting within eight kilometres of a community, should I not apply the same rules in Central Newfoundland, on the Northern Peninsula, or the West Coast?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition - let not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Member for Kilbride try to switch now and say the prayer of the petition is a meeting. I am one of the most accessible ministers in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: My staff, Mr. Speaker, have been meeting day in and day out, with the group that is presenting this petition today, as well as with the commercial operators. So the prayer of the petition is not that I meet - the prayer of the petition is that I stop clear-cutting within eight kilometres of a community on the Bonavista Peninsula. If the government decides to take that attitude, then everybody had better take the blame when the bottom falls out of the economy on the Bonavista Peninsula, or at least, the part of the economy supported by the logging operation.

Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for what the people of Bonavista and the signers of the petition are trying to accomplish, but there has to be a happy medium. There is no way to stop harvesting within eight kilometres of a community on the Bonavista Peninsula without shutting down the commercial - the harvesting, whether it is for pulpwood, for saw logs, or whatever, on the Bonavista peninsula, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to meet with the people who have presented the petition, either here in St. John's or in Terra Nova. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, it is a very difficult job to try to balance out what they are asking and what the people who are making a living on the Bonavista Peninsula harvesting timber are asking. Thank you.

MR. R. AYLWARD: All they want is a meeting.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the residents of Mobile I would like to present the following petition. I will read the prayer of the petition; To the hon. The House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned, all enfranchised residents of Mobile, an unincorporated community on the Southern Shore in the district of Ferryland, that the government of Newfoundland and Labrador take action to remove from any proposed amalgamation of municipalities, the local service district of Mobile. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take such action as quickly as possible and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, 148 residents of Mobile. They managed to reach all except three residents of the community to have this petition signed by 148 people of voting age in the district. The people in the area are very concerned with the proposed amalgamation plans encompassing the community of Mobile. Two years ago there was a commission of inquiry of three members that went out and took public submissions on amalgamation from the people of the area. That report, it was two years ago, was a report that was never completed and the residents of Mobile feel that the report was negative against amalgamation and therefore government has now ordered a new amalgamation plan, a new commission of inquiry, to go out again now and try to get the result that they want. Well, the people of Mobile have the result that they want at present. They have their own water, they have their own private septic systems, they have their own street lighting, they pay a fire protection fee to the town of Witless Bay. They are quite happy in Mobile. They are on the outskirts of the proposed amalgamation area. Witless Bay and Bay Bulls are the other two communities being proposed in this amalgamation process and I have seen, during the past few months, some of the ill effects of amalgamation that was forced upon the people of Middle Pond.

Middle Pond is almost a dozen miles from the Town of St. John's, from the City Hall, it is on the outskirts of Bay Bulls. They decided to join Bay Bulls, they do not want to be a part of the City. They had no say whatsoever in the amalgamation process in their area and in Mobile the same fears are being expressed. The community is 100 per cent united down to the last person in the community. They went through great pains to go to every resident there and only three people, either were not at home or they could not be reached in order to sign this petition. It is very important, I think that the wishes of the people in Mobile should be listened to. The request is to remove Mobile from the list of amalgamation of communities that are occurring in that specific area. I do not think that it is an unfair request, I think it is time that the government listened to the people in an area when they are proposing and appointing a commission of inquiry. If they do not get the results that they want they should put it to rest. They should not appoint another inquiry until they go out and get the result that they want. I think that the people of Mobile here are irate, they do not want to be a part of this plan whatsoever and they asked Municipal Affairs to remove them from this plan and when the commission of inquiry proceeds they are asked to just discuss amalgamation of Witless Bay and Bay Bulls. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition put forth on behalf of the people in the district of Ferryland, particularly the community of Mobile, as it relates to the proposed amalgamation of the communities of Witless Bay, Bay Bulls and I think it is - the Member for St. John's South wonders if I have been to the Southern Shore, the answer is yes. I have been there many times, Mr. Speaker, I understand that Tors Cove may also be included.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You are getting paid a fortune for going back and forth there.

MR. WINSOR: I will not comment on what my colleague said, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak on this petition because it is a serious matter again because what we find is that this government is intruding into the right of a municipality or a town to run its own affairs. Mr. Speaker, I thought after the fiasco that occurred with amalgamation a while ago it would never rear its ugly head again but obviously it is back again, Mr. Speaker. We have a group of people saying: we do not want to become part of a larger town. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said on many occasions that the people would not have to amalgamate if they did not want to. Now, Mr. Speaker, we clearly in this case have a community almost entirely, who have said that they do not want to become part of the larger town. Mr. Speaker, it's another game of words that the Premier plays because if the two larger towns want it than these people will have no say. So they have been disenfranchised, they do not have a right to vote, even though all the people of that particular community don't want to become part of the larger municipality being proposed, this government intends to ram through a study to do things that the majority of the people do not want to do. This has been going on now for the last three years since the present Minister of Social Services proposed those amalgamations, those groupings throughout the Province. We thought we'd seen the last of it. We obviously haven't. This administration tends to forge ahead against the wishes of the people and enforce amalgamation on them when they don't want to, Mr. Speaker.

I ask that the members of this House support my colleague for Ferryland who spoke on behalf of the people of Mobile, asking that the minister not do as he's done in the past with areas in the St. John's area. We see the kind of fuss that's been created as a result of ramming through legislation, ignoring the wishes of the people and what happens when we do that to municipalities. I support the petition and ask that this House go on record in supporting the people of Mobile in their quest to save their own community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition signed by 110 residents of Little Bay Islands, and also signed by twenty-four students at H. L. Strong Academy on Little Bay Islands.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: we the undersigned hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to refrain from treating education as an expense and to recognise it rather as an investment in our future. We feel that if teacher layoffs, school closures and/or wage rollbacks are brought into effect the children of our communities will be caused to suffer due to a decrease in the educational programs and lack of essential services, such as physical education, music, art, computers, et cetera. We do not consider such actions made by the government to be the responsible actions normally expected from the leadership of our Province. We the people do have the final say.

That is the statement of the prayer from the people of Little Bay Islands. Since this government has started talking about its budgetary situation, considerable ripples have flowed through the education community with regard to what possibly is going to happen. We all know that the teachers have taken a strike vote recently with regard to their own particular contract. One of the things that the people on Little Bay Islands made clear to me when I attended a public meeting there is that they are concerned, particularly with the maintenance of their existing school. They are an island. It is difficult, if not impossible, for students to commute to larger centres on the mainland. As a result the school in Little Bay Islands must be maintained.

However, the business that's being kicked around about the elimination of the 2 per cent rule would cost the Green Bay Integrated School Board some thirty-odd teaching positions. That could possibly impact on just about every school in the district, and certainly even the loss of a single teacher or even a half teaching unit on Little Bay Islands, would be a considerable hardship for that particular community. There's a threshold level below which you cannot go and still have an operating and viable school. The people there are very concerned that as their island starts to grow and expand economically they're afraid that the school will not have sufficient numbers under current regulations to stay as an individual school.

Little Bay Islands is well aware of the inclinations of this particular government. This government tried to take away their ferry system there a year or so ago. Last year it tried to smooth talk them out of their crab processing licence. Both initiatives on the part of government they resisted. As a result today there is a large new crab factory being built on Little Bay Islands. It will be open this spring, employing some 300 plus workers. So you have a community that has a new lease on life but that is worried. If numbers of teachers are eliminated in the present budgetary cuts then the school itself may be under attack and may not be viable if there aren't enough teachers to sustain a school unit.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition, and I ask that it be tabled and put to the department concerned. Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has taken a very assaultive approach on education in this Province. They fail to realize that the success of any nation or province or individual depends upon their educational level.

In this Province the adult literacy rate is extremely low. We have many people failing to even get a high school education, and too many graduates of our high schools cannot find jobs, and when the job market today is requiring that people have a post-secondary education, this Province is slashing education to the bare bones. In fact, the longer we neglect the problem of dealing with the underlying cause of the problem in our Province, the more serious the problem will get.

We have a big problem here in the Province, and it is not a budget deficit. We have an education deficit here in this Province. We are far below other provinces in this country, and Canada is falling behind other nations in the world. If we do not correct the root of the problem we will continue to fall further and further behind.

Now this Province just slashed, in the mini-Budget, $20 million out of education, $17.6 million out of current account, and the remaining out of capital account of this Province. They have looked at, in this budget again, taking a further $25 million alone in education - not counting numerous other areas of education that they have been picking away at over the past number of years.

We should be more concerned today with the deficit in education rather than the deficit in our budget, because if we are ever going to eliminate a deficit in our budget to get the economy moving again, it has to be through skilled people in our work force - not with a high illiteracy rate, not with people who are out in the market who do not have the skills to take on these jobs, not in a Province that has people having to leave this Province and seek work elsewhere, and the people that do train and develop skills and so on, a lot are leaving this Province because nothing is being done to develop a climate for economic activity here to even be able to keep the trained people that we do produce.

I support my colleague in the presentation of this petition. I think education has been in for some rough times over the past four years and, with the Budget coming down possibly the 16th or 18th of this month, once again I think we are in for some terrible times and education, while it is acknowledged as the focal point of their economic strategic plan, they are paying lip service to their strategic economic plan. They should practice what they preach, establish priorities to get out of this economic mess, and put education as that number one priority.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another petition to present, but I will gladly yield for the Minister of Education if he would like to respond to the petition just presented so forcefully by the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to present the petition. The hon. minister did not stand.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition I wish to present is of hundreds of residents of western Newfoundland protesting the closure last September of the cancer clinic in Corner Brook, and calling on the government to reinstate the clinic.

As I pointed out to Your Honour earlier this afternoon, the petition is not specifically addressed to the House of Assembly, but it clearly seeks government corrective action. It has been signed by hundreds of people, and the initiators of the petition, a cancer patient and her husband, asked me to present it in the House of Assembly. So with Your Honour's permission, or with leave of members opposite, I will proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition reads: To all residents of the west coast of our Province, our cancer clinic has been closed out. We are in need of medical help just as the east coast of the Province is. We have to show the government that they need to listen to us. By signing this petition you will be showing your support to have our cancer clinic reopened so we also can have a fighting chance at life.

Then it asks cancer patients to signify their phone numbers.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was drafted and prepared by Eileen Morrison, a cancer patient residing in Mount Moriah in the Bay of Islands, who has been battling cancer for the past ten years. Her husband, Derrick Morrison, who works at the paper mill in Corner Brook, assisted her.

The Morrisons, their relatives, friends and other cancer patients throughout western Newfoundland, have been collecting signatures on this petition and are continuing to do so. So until the problem has been addressed by the government I will be coming in, day after day, presenting more and more petitions.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of western Newfoundland are angry. For twenty-one years we had a cancer clinic. It operated during the 1970s and the 1980s. It operated until September 1992. Cancer specialists based in St. John's visited the Corner Brook clinic regularly, at least once a month, and gave cancer patients from western Newfoundland checkups and treatments. Since September western Newfoundland cancer patients have had to go to St. John's at their own expense and this has placed a terrible strain on these cancer patients. They have had to cover their own travel and accommodations expenses, all of them, except for the few who are entitled to social assistance. Relatives or friends have been unable to accompany them in some cases because of the cost or because of work commitments. In situations where relatives were able to travel, of course the cost was doubled. Cancer patients have had to take time away from their homes, their families, and their jobs to get treatments in St. John's. Some cancer patients who should have had checkups have gone without because they cannot bring themselves or they cannot afford to travel to St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, Eileen Morrison, the instigator of the petition, gave me a letter titled 'A Plea for Life' which she asked me to read in the House of Assembly. The five minutes allotted to me will not allow me to read it all but let me quote excerpts. 'My name is Eileen Morrison and I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and all other cancer patients on the west coast of Newfoundland. I have been fighting a battle with cancer since the age of 32 which has been for the last ten years now.' Mrs. Morrison outlines the surgery she has had, the illness she has suffered, and continues to suffer. She goes on to say, 'In those ten years I have been seeing a cancer doctor regularly. The cancer doctors used to come to Corner Brook every month but because of the lack of doctors we cannot get any doctor now to come here, the reason being the lack of money from our government.' She goes on, 'My thoughts are - if you have or get cancer on the west coast of Newfoundland our government is telling us to stay home and wait to die. Give us our clinic back, it is our life on the line, not yours. When someone with cancer has to travel to St. John's for cancer treatment it is very hard.' And she describes how hard it has been for her and her family. She concludes, 'So, Mr. Kitchen and Mr. Wells, why not take time out for some serious talking. Give us our cancer clinic back and our own cobalt unit. Life to me is so very precious.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with leave let me add that I wholeheartedly support the petition and I call on the government to immediately reinstate the cancer outreach clinic for western Newfoundland, to immediately have cancer specialists visiting the clinic in Corner Brook to serve western Newfoundland patients.

Thank you.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise with regard to the petition. Of course the issue itself was raised by the hon. Member for Humber East on CFCB and other west coast media at the time when the issue came to light. Now initially the issue was one of whether the cancer clinic itself had been closed. The day on which the hon. member opposite chose to make an issue of the problem I received a number of calls from some very alarmed cancer patients in my own district. After receiving those calls from some very distraught and very upset cancer patients I then chose to call the Minister of Health, the former Minister of Finance, to find out exactly what the situation was and I was alarmed to hear from him that this was not entirely the way it was being put. The hon. Member for Humber East was in fact out telling people that the cancer clinic had been closed and no cancer patients would be able to receive treatment in Corner Brook, and really putting fear in the hearts of all cancer patients. Now, there are individual cases of some cancer patients, depending of course on their situation, that would have to travel to St. John's because there was no cancer specialist available, no oncologist available in Corner Brook, but that is not always the case.

I know of a number of cancer patients in Port aux Basques for instance, who travel to the Western Memorial for cancer treatment who are able to receive full cancer treatment the same way as they always have, so the clinic itself has not completely closed up shop, it is a matter of specific cancer patients having to travel entirely because of the changes made because of a lack of an oncologist available.

Now what would she suggest if you only have two or three oncologists? That we lower the amount available in St. John's and move it out to the west coast? That would possibly be a solution, but then there would be people in here who would be unable to meet their cancer specialist so we have to look at it in an overall situation and I really think that there was a lot of very crass politics played with this. I had reassurances from cancer patients that things were not as bad as the hon. member was portraying it to be for all cancer patients. Granted some cancer patients were in fact in the situation and I sympathize with their situation, it is a very difficult thing having to travel regularly to St. John's, but for her to suggest that the situation was entirely as bad for all cancer patients on the west coast, was very poor on her part to suggest, it was very crass politics, it was of the highest order, the very gutter type of politics that the hon. member plays and I was personally very disturbed by it and I think it is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should be taken to task for, playing that kind of politics with an issue such as this, in scaring people who have no need to have that kind of pressure put on them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard it all until I heard that hon. member from LaPoile just say what he had to say. He said, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Humber East should not be putting the fear of God in the people. It is the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, it is not the member, it is not the member for Humber East or the member for LaPoile, it is the hundreds of people who signed this petition, they are the ones having the problem with this government. Let me tell him, Mr. Speaker - he can shout out all he wants - but I am going to tell him right now, this matter was not raised on Open Line in Corner Brook the first time, this matter was raised in this House by me in November, early in November. I raised it here in this House when the minister denied at the time that there was any closedowns or shutdowns or cutbacks, he denied it at the time. Now, Mr. Speaker, the person who told me about that problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - was a man, who suffered from cancer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: He was a man who suffered from cancer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the hon. member Opposite should not mislead this House by making statements which are patently untrue.

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

MR. SIMMS: That is a typical, silly point of order by the Minister of Health, it is not even worth responding to. Now I will say to the Member for LaPoile once again, this matter was raised and brought to my attention back in early November by a constituent of mine in the Health Sciences Centre when I went in there to visit somebody, and this person came to me in that hospital and said: here is what happening. I am a person who needs radiation treatment, I was getting it in Grand Falls every month -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - every month -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Will the Minister of Health let the hon. member at least have his say?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there has never been radiation treatment outside of St. John's, and this is the sort of thing that I am trying to say, he is misleading this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members know the procedure for presenting petitions. They are not periods of debate and I ask hon. members, please, to adhere to the rules as much as possible. If we do not, we are only going to end up in bedlam and chaos, and I ask hon. members please to pay attention, no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. The Minister of Health is trying very desperately now to cut my time because I only have five minutes to speak, that is all he is trying to do and if he wanted to know about the person who came to me back in November and said -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SIMMS: - the individual - I will tell him the truth, the individual who came to me in the hospital said to me: he was getting treatment from that cancer clinic in St. John's and they were getting it on a monthly basis. The Minister of Health knows that is true, until he cut it, he could not provide them with the funding to hire more oncologists, and do you know where that individual is today, Mr. Speaker, the person, my constituent, my friend, who brought this to my attention in November?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. SIMMS: - he died! He died two weeks ago! Thanks to the Minister of Health and others, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the lack of effort on the part of the Minister of Health and others, I'm saying, in his Department.

That's the truth of the matter, I say to the Member for LaPoile. It's not crass politics. It is true! The sooner that members opposite open their ears and listen to what's happening and see what's happening out around this Province, the sooner members opposite open their ears and listen to people who are suffering, then the better off this Province will be and the people of this Province will be. That is our whole problem.

I say to the Member for LaPoile finally: to accuse the Member for Humber East in this particular debate on this particular petition, he himself, as he continues to do, plays down what's occurring, instead of addressing the problem, acknowledging there is a big problem. Because there is a big problem. The concerns brought to the attention of the House today by the Member for Humber East are the concerns of hundreds of people who signed this petition. Not the Member for Humber East. She brought their concerns to the open line program because people called her. I brought concerns to this House in November because people contacted me, including the individual constituent who since has passed away.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: So don't ever stand in this House and accuse me of practising crass politics, or the Member for Humber East -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - when all I'm trying to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - is get members of the government side to open their eyes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members please when I tell them time is up that they would please take their place, or at least ask for leave.

The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker.

MS. VERGE: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East on a point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I presented a petition dealing with the closure of the cancer clinic in Corner Brook. My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, supported my position in a very forceful and emotional way. The Minister of Health interrupted the Leader of the Opposition. Isn't the Minister of Health now going to speak to the petition?

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

There's no point of order. The Minister of Health is not allowed to speak to the petition. Three people spoke, and the Minister of Health is not permitted to speak.

MR. ROBERTS: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The only reason the Minister of Health didn't rise is that there had been three speakers, and as Your Honour has said, that is the rule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the point of order raised by the Government House Leader, we're quite prepared on this side of the House to give him the leave to speak. I realize his colleague for LaPoile stood before he had a chance maybe to stand. I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Minister of Health speaking?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Minister of Health have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members opposite for giving me the opportunity to speak to this petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: The cancer clinics that have been operating in Grand Falls and Corner Brook are still operating. They have not ceased to operate. So when people say that the cancer clinics in Corner Brook and Grand Falls are not operating, they're not really telling it the way it is.

What has happened is that there is a serious shortage -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, the treatments are proceeding for the people who need it. It's chemotherapy that was going on in Grand Falls and Corner Brook. People are still getting chemotherapy in Grand Falls and Corner Brook where these clinics were. They're being administered by specially trained nurses who specialize in this area and who are operating under the jurisdiction of the Cancer Treatment Foundation, which is headquartered here in St. John's. What is missing, and what was, are visits by cancer specialists. It is a serious question, there's no doubt about that, but the treatment is still proceeding.

People who required radiation, that other form of cancer treatment, always had to come to St. John's. The equipment is very expensive and that is why we have had to keep the radiation oncologist that we've had in St. John's to handle the radiation. We don't have enough to send them any more for a while. There is a fourth, we were down to three. There is a fourth here now for a short period of time, and that person will be leaving I think at the end of the month. But then we have another oncologist coming here. He's due in the first part of April.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: No the first part of April.

When he comes we are expecting that these clinics will resume - the visits by the specialists will resume.

I am told that it is not necessary, for a person who is on continuous chemotherapy, to have their signs necessarily monitored by a specialist in cancer. A physician can do it. Other specialists can do it. Sometimes a cancer specialist is required, and that is when the people sometimes could come to St. John's.

Now I appreciate the problem of expenditures. The rule is this, in the Province now, that the first $500 of expenditure in travel is borne by the person, and the Province picks up half over that - and it is not each trip; it is the total for the year. So if you have to come more than once, the first $500 is yours and so on. I know that is not an appropriate procedure. We would like to have it otherwise, but it is what we can afford at the moment.

Now then, let me say one more point about the radiation oncologist. We did have lined up to come here before Christmas, a very special person in the area - a highly renowned, internationally renowned person in the area of chemotherapy type oncology, and that person was going to be here. We were very excited about his coming here because with a person of his stature here it would help us attract other people. What has happened is that he had a sickness in the family and he is not now expected until the summer, and we are not even sure if he is coming, but we are trying to do it.

I want to make the point that there is a desperate shortage of these specialists across Canada and elsewhere. It is not something that is affected by the price that we pay. It is not a matter of money. The Cancer Treatment Foundation has the money to hire them. The problem is, they cannot get them. They have tried and they have travelled all over. As a matter of fact, I would like to pay tribute to the people running the Cancer Treatment Foundation in the manner in which they have been able to line up people to come here.

Now then, once the fourth person comes, we are expecting another person to come here later on in the spring, a Canadian, a Newfoundlander coming back from training on the mainland. Then we will have five, and if that other person comes, that I am talking about, we will have six; we will have plenty.

So it looks like the Cancer Treatment Foundation has done a tremendous job of recruiting. It is just that you cannot make them available when they can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Yes, I have a petition today on behalf of 3,503 people on the Connaigre Peninsula.

The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the district of Fortune - Hermitage humbly showeth. We, the undersigned, petition our government to initiate immediate action that will provide for a new facility to address the health care needs of the people from McCallum, Seal Cove, Sandyville, Hermitage, Harbour Breton, Poole's Cove, Coomb's Cove, Boxey, Red Cove, Mose Ambrose, English Harbour West, St. Jacques, Belleoram, and Rencontre East.

The petitioners recognize the shortfalls of the existing antiquated facility and highlight the following: The present facility is more than fifty years old. It is a wooden structure and is in need of extensive roof, window and siding repairs, is not insulated, lacks patient privacy, has poor site access, inappropriate physical layout, to mention just a few. Also we feel that a new facility would enhance physician recruitment and stability.

We understand there have already been three studies underway that have recommended the replacement of this existing facility and we understand also this is the petition that the previous minister recognized the need for and afforded it priority status, which would see a new building begin within the next five years. We feel we deserve better, and request some positive action that will indicate your commitment to this area.

The hospital in question, Mr. Speaker, is the one that is located in Harbour Breton and it was built in 1935. In fact, I had an opportunity back in 1955 to visit that facility with a broken limb. At that particular time we were in isolation, we had no road through and I had to spend eleven days there and had to be air lifted out later. Our oldest child was also born at that facility. Practically every second weekend when I go down, I visit that facility and I see the need for a new facility in the area.

Now, the Connaigre area on the south coast as anyone knows, even though the road is through to Grand Falls, is a long distance and it is rough terrain. In a certain section of the Harbour Breton highway before you connect to the Bay d'Espoir highway, it is a very, very treacherous piece of road and often during the wintertime that particular section is closed off because of drifting. Even under the best conditions we are talking about two-and-a-half to three hours drive from down in the area up to Grand Falls. Obviously there is need for a new facility in that particular part of the coast. Also, statistics will prove that the communities in question along the south coast, the residents themselves are aging, there is an older population. I am sure that as time progresses many people including myself will probably have to, if time allows me that, to spend some time in that particular institution. It is not a situation to be taken lightly because I recognize many, many people along the coast, rather than having to stay in that facility, find themselves in Grand Bank, find themselves in Stephenville Crossing, find themselves in Gander, find themselves in Grand Falls and there is no continuity with family. These particular people, if their residence were in a facility in Harbour Breton, would be able to travel probably within an hour, rather than the longer period of time which they have to now. So, the need is there in the area and I really support the people in their effort to get this new facility. I believe honestly, that in time it will, because the need is there and when the need is there than the people's needs have to be addressed.

The minister visited the area last fall and saw the facility. There is no doubt about it that the people who are operating it, the administrator and others, have kept the building in as good a shape as possible but the building does need to be replaced. There needs to be a new facility to take care of the health needs of the people on the Connaigre Peninsula. So in time, I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having that problem addressed so that the people on the south coast can have really adequate long term chronic care and probably better acute care than they already have for that region.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I do support the petition and I have already signed it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader, the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I want to rise to speak in support of the petition presented by the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. What the member has said indeed is correct, we can all identify with the need for health care facilities, particularly the care for the elderly. It is the most pressing and growing problem that we have with health care in our Province today. Any of us who are out and about doing our jobs in this Province know the demand and the pressure for, particularly, chronic care facilities. So, I can fully understand and identify with what the member is saying, indeed it is correct. There is the need for a facility in the region that the member talks about, there is no doubt about that. It is my strongest wishes that before too much longer that indeed they will get such a facility. We all know that and the member talked about residents having to go to other sections of the coast and sections of the Province or regions to be accommodated and I guess the most traumatic experience must be for someone, that senior citizen who has their wits about them, to have to go many miles away from home and family to be cared for. It as well, puts a lot of pressure on family members who want to visit, financial and getting time off and others but the most traumatic, I guess experience, must be by those who have to move so far away from home to be accommodated. I know I have ran into it on many, many occasions where the only way that mom, dad or grandmother or grandfather or pop, could be accommodated somewhere was many, many miles away from home. First of all of course, the person concerned did not want to go away from home but there was no choice and then there is the hardship on family and friends to try and get to visit those in these institutions periodically, you know, it's very difficult.

I want to support the petition. I want to say very sincerely, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, that I look at my own district right now. If we had a 100 beds for chronic care or level three care, or whatever level of care it is, that they would be filled up before midnight. Tomorrow morning we would be into another -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What's that? I'm wrong. All I can say to the minister is that I look at Blue Crest Inter Faith Home in Grand Bank now. There's a waiting list there in excess of 100 people. Very desperate cases, I say to the minister. The only way they can get in there now is if you've just about had it. Because the list is so long and the place is not equipped to accommodate those - so if we had 100 beds today, I still say, Mr. Speaker, we could fill it up tonight. We'd have another problem tomorrow because people are aging and living longer. The pressure is just tremendous on the health care system. It's the biggest worry I would say to the Minister of Health and concern that I have as a private citizen of the Province, and as well as a member representing a district.

I don't know how in the name of God we're ever going to be able to cope with it all. Looking at the pressure that's coming on the facilities and looking at the financial pressures that governments find themselves under. It's a nightmare. Because we all know we have a responsibility to care for the elderly in a dignified way, but I guess it's getting so bad so fast that it makes you wonder where it's all going to go, and where it's going to end up.

Having said that, I want to support the petition presented by the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would support the petition. We have a number of hospitals around the Province which need to be replaced. There's one in Grand Bank, for example, the hospital there, which needs to be replaced. It's an acute care hospital. In Grand Bank we want to move that over and join it on to Blue Crest and then close it. Close it so we can operate something more efficiently and with better treatment for the people who are there, perhaps.

I visited Fogo. Fogo has another cottage hospital which needs to be replaced in time. It's a jewel of a hospital from the point of view of what's going on there. The same is true with respect to the Harbour Breton hospital. Good things are going on in Harbour Breton hospital. Good things are going on in Bonne Bay hospital, which also needs to be replaced in time. So there are a number of these that need to be replaced. The Placentia hospital is another one which we hope to replace soon. Also, the same plan there as it is in Grand Bank, to move the clinic and hospital and attach it to the long-term care facility, to take advantage of the need for twenty-four hour care in the long-term care facility, and also that will help in the clinical area.

Harbour Breton is a bit different because it's quite a distance from the nearest hospital. It's a long ways from Grand Falls, which is the next hospital. We're going to have to run a hospital in Harbour Breton I think for quite a long time. It needs to be replaced. I visited there and I was very much impressed with the care that was being given by the staff. So impressed I think that I told them that and they were a bit nervous that we weren't going to build anything new. Because it was so good what was going on they thought that they oversold their case. Ever since then I've been having to backtrack. I said: I didn't mean that you didn't need a new building just because everything was going on good, very well.

I want to raise this question in the minute or two that I have left. To build a new facility with a hospital and a nursing home attached will cost, I don't know how much, close to $10 million, say. That will mean that we will have to borrow $10 million and pay 10 per cent a year. A million dollars a year just for the interest. Usually a new facility costs more to operate than the old one. Now the question is: can I do better with that $1 million by improving what's going on in that hospital then we can in paying interest to a foreign banker?

Now, that is something to consider. If we build a new facility to replace the thing that is in a particular place which is reasonably good now, just build a new building, the building may cost $10 million, we will have to borrow $10 million from our banker, wherever we get the money, and we will be paying $1 million a year interest forever, assuming we will never be able to pay off the debt, $1 million a year out of current account. Now, what can we do with $1 million? That is the alternative. Can we get better health care for that million dollars than replacing a building? Just think about that. We could possibly put a nurse full-time in Gaultois for that million dollars. We could do many things that we would like to do. We could probably put physiotherapy in. They have, I think, about eight or ten long-term people in that hospital now sitting around in chairs. When you are in a long-term facility you need more than just nursing care. That is your life. It is not like a hospital where you are going to be discharged. You need care, you need recreation, you need physiotherapy, you need a good long-term life. It is a question of critical mass. Can you do it for eight people? Do you need thirty or forty people? What is the critical mass? I do not know what the answers to these are. Some people say you can do it with a small number, and some people say you need 100 like the Stephenville Crossing home, a beautiful home over there, too. It is hard to say what is required. I do not want to ramble too long, Mr. Speaker. I do say I will support the petition and when funds are available we will certainly move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Order l.

MR. SPEAKER: Order l. Address in Reply.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to have this opportunity to comment on the Speech from the Throne delivered by the Lieutenant-Governor here on Thursday. As all members of the House realize while the Lieutenant-Governor read the speech it was actually written by the Premier and his ministers. It was actually the assessment of the state of the Province of the Premier. Mr. Speaker, that assessment is dismal indeed. The Speech from the Throne basically offers no hope to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It gives a pessimistic account of the financial affairs of the Province. Listening to those words, words which essentially had been given by the Premier on Province-wide television the night before, made me think of a receiver. Basically we have a Premier who is functioning as a receiver, as an accountant sent in by the banks to shut down the place. When the Premier rose and spoke following the Lieutenant-Governor's reading of the Throne Speech the Premier revealed something more of his own outlook. The Premier admitted to managing decline. For the last four years the Wells administration has indeed been managing decline, managing very poorly but contributing to and precipitating the decline. We have had a free-fall decline of our economy. We have had a decline of our health care services. We have had a decline of our educational offerings. We have had a terrible rise in the unemployment rate, in the social assistance roles. We have lost more than 10 per cent of our jobs.

How ironic, the Wells administration campaigned on the slogan, 'real change.' When the administration came to office four years ago we had over 200,000 jobs in this Province. What do we have today? We have 180,000. Do we have that many left? We are losing jobs every other day, sad to say. We have more than twice as many people on welfare now as were on social assistance four years ago. The number, including children, women and men, must be over 70,000 today. We all know that well over 20,000 people are getting federal fisheries compensation. The 20,000-plus on the so-called package are not factored into the calculation of our unemployment rate. It is a dismal situation, Mr. Speaker.

The Speech from the Throne outlines contributing factors. Contributing factors have included mismanagement by the Wells Administration; lack of initiative in stimulating the economy; oppressive taxes loaded onto businesses operating in the Province -all the more discouraging for Newfoundland resident businesspeople.

Mr. Speaker, this government has discouraged employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. This government's fiscal measures have made it more and more tempting for businesses to shift people away from Newfoundland and Labrador and over to the Maritimes. The result is that we have lost more than 10 per cent of the jobs we had four years ago. We have more than twice as many people on welfare. We have an unemployment rate officially determined at about 22 per cent. Outside of that we have over 20,000 people getting federal fisheries compensation.

It is a very depressing set of statistics. What does the Premier suggest to counteract these negative trends - four years of steady deterioration? What does the Premier suggest? He suggests more studies and committees of bureaucrats. That is the best he can come up with. The hope Clyde Wells offers for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is committees of civil servants, a joint committee of federal and provincial bureaucrats to work together on our economic problems, and more studies.

When the Liberals campaigned for election four years ago, they said we had been studied to death, that Newfoundland and Labrador's problems had been studied to excess. They shouted there was a need for action. Now, they, the same as others in the Province, had the benefit of the House Royal Commission Report on Unemployment and Employment, which had been published a couple of years earlier. Soon after the election, on taking office, the Premier promised a strategic economic plan, a recovery plan, within days. What did we get? - months later, a recovery commission and a Liberal patronage pork barrel called Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. That served the purpose of employing displaced Liberal campaign managers, campaign workers, and defeated candidates, alright, but it hasn't done much to improve the economy of this Province. It has run up government debt, and what does it have to show for the public spending? - jobs for some Liberals, a drain on everyone else.

Then, the Premier retreated by saying that there had to be a strategic economic plan prepared following consultation. He struck committees, sent them across the Province, they held public hearings. Lo and behold, in June of 1992, more than three years after his administration had come to power, he published a Strategic Economic Plan. That plan basically repeated the main recommendations and observations of the House Royal Commission Report which had come out some five years earlier.

What is he saying in this Throne Speech? It is not a plan at all, it is only half a plan. Now, he needs to do a Strategic Social Plan. He forgot about half the exercise, forgot to have Doug House and Harold Lundrigan do the full exercise three years ago, so we need a strategic social plan.

Now, here we are, on the eve of another election. So the Premier is expecting the people of the Province to believe that he needs more time to complete the studies, to have more committees, to have more consultation, to come up with some ideas about how we are going to reverse the terrible descent.

He acknowledged in his speech here on Thursday afternoon that he has been managing decline, and he has offered no hope for reversal of that trend - no hope for incline, more decline, more committees, more studies. He only did half the study.

So where was the action? Well, the government has basically paid out more and more and more public money for welfare. This government seems to have a policy of preferring welfare to work. The government reduced spending on employment projects, or community development projects, while it increased spending on welfare.

Today, in this Province, we have hundreds and hundreds of people who have been used to working, who have employment skills, who want to work, who have no alternative but to be on welfare. These are people who would be much happier taking part in government-sponsored employment projects with legitimate public purposes' projects that are planned and supervised, but this Wells Government is not giving them that alternative. Instead, the Wells Government is simply paying out welfare. And, Mr. Speaker, the government has structured the social assistance regulations in such a way that it is very difficult for people who have had to resort to social assistance to ever break out of the welfare track.

In Question Period today - today, International Women's Day - once again, I pointed out to members opposite how regressive was their October 1990 policy change of categorizing child support and maintenance as non-allowable income for purposes of calculating social assistance entitlement.

Mr. Speaker, the regulations provide an incentive, but it is too little an incentive for social assistance recipients to supplement their income. The regulations allow people to benefit up to a maximum of only $115 a month through working, and the regulations used to provide that incentive for getting income from an absent parent; but, as of October 1990, the regulations require a dollar for dollar subtraction of child support.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it had only been a few months earlier than that, in May, 1989, when the previous PC Government opened the Support Enforcement Agency, which is a division of the provincial Department of Justice. That office has been very effective and successful in enforcing court orders for child support - orders that require absent parents, usually fathers, to pay for the support of their children - but just a few short months after that Support Enforcement Agency was up and running and producing good results, the government took away the benefit from the neediest people - from single parents and their children on social assistance.

Now, in the short term, the government probably saved a small amount of money - perhaps as much as $100,000 a year - perhaps; but, Mr. Speaker, when I say that figure I am thinking out loud. I have never been able to find out actual numbers. I have asked several times but I have been deprived information about the financial effect of that regulation change. I do know that the immediate drop in income from the social assistance recipients affected was a maximum of $115 a month. There might have been about 1,000 families hurt.

Mr. Speaker, over the medium to long term, that change is not saving the government an appreciable amount of money, because it has taken away the incentive for people on social assistance to even try to get court orders for child support. Now, there is no reason for them to go through the hassle of a court application or to put any real effort into convincing a judge that they need support, because they are not going to benefit. Every dollar they get in the way of child support is going to be deducted from social assistance. They will be worse off, Mr. Speaker, because the social assistance and support enforcement systems are not perfectly synchronized, and there are social assistance recipients who get child support from the Support Enforcement Agency sporadically; they might get it in January and February, but suddenly, in March, the payment doesn't come in to the Support Enforcement Agency on time, and there is a gap then, when the beneficiaries, the single mother and children, aren't getting a cheque from the Support Enforcement office and, of course, neither are they getting the money from social assistance. So the result of this change has been a great hardship for some of the poorest families in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, when the government designs social assistance regulations and other financial compensation programs, it is essential that the government become informed about the true needs of people and about human nature. The government, in designing social assistance policy, should build into the structure a recognition of the kind of reward system that fosters initiative and self-help. Right now, there is very little incentive for anyone on social assistance to supplement her income or his income; there is zero incentive to seek child support.

Mr. Speaker, there was a big announcement in the Throne Speech following the admission that, after four years, not only has the government not acted to improve the economy or reverse the decline, but that they only have half a plan. They only did the economic side, they didn't do the social side, so says the Throne Speech. There was a big announcement, that the Wells Government is going to now develop a strategic social plan.

Mr. Speaker, what about the report of the Royal Commission on the Justice system? The government has had that since May of 1991. Granted, they hid it from the public for a whole year, but they were finally shamed into releasing that to citizens of the Province in the spring of 1992. Here we are, approaching the spring of 1993; that Royal Commission is there with a critique, with recommendations - where is the action? Why the need for more consultation and planning in Justice?

Mr. Speaker, in the case of education, early in their term of office, the Wells Administration published a document called the White Paper on Post-Secondary Education, proclaiming a commitment to the three Es. The former Minister of Education seemed to like to use education clichés from the United States that had been fashionable there some years back. He used to talk about the three 'E's'. Does anyone even remember what the three 'E's' are?

At any rate, there was a white paper on post-secondary education released to the public in February of 1990. That document set out an analysis and plans for action. One of the commitments was a start on construction of new facilities for Grenfell College in 1991. What has happened? Nothing. Nobody in the government is even talking about that document anymore. They cannot even remember what the three 'E's' are.

Then, instead of acting to bring about reforms and improvements in primary, elementary, secondary education, our children's education, when the need was obvious the government appointed a Royal Commission. Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission did a fine job and, I think, produced a very worthwhile report, but really that report does not contain much new, does not say much that could not have been anticipated, but the government successfully avoided doing anything while this Royal Commission went about its work.

Well the government has had the Williams Royal Commission Report now for almost a year, and what have they done? Basically all they have done is add to confusion. They have sent out contradictory messages, the Minister of Education and the Premier - the Premier who so craftily uses words to deceive - have given contradictory messages but they have done nothing.

So with major studies having been done on justice and education, can the government excuse further delay in reform and action, in education and justice, by saying they have to have a strategic social plan?

Mr. Speaker, in the case of health care, the government got elected on a mandate of opening more hospital beds and improving health care. They have done the opposite. The other day the government released a report by Dr. Dobbin proposing consolidation of hospital boards. Mr. Speaker, that document is superficial and quite unsatisfactory. There is no supporting analysis justifying the recommendations. There is nothing in the document showing how reducing the number of hospital boards is going to lead to improved patient care. Perhaps there is a justification. It is incumbent upon the government to show it. Again the government waited until the eve of the election even to disclose that report, and they are not making any commitments.

So in the two big social areas, health and education, we have got recommendations but there has been no clear indication of what the government proposes to do. Mr. Speaker, even if there were, what difference would it make? By now people realize that you cannot believe a thing they say.

They got elected with a mandate of real change, and people understood that to mean positive change. The change they talked about had to do with job creation, with expanding the economy, with generating jobs so mothers' sons could be brought home from the mainland. The change they talked about had to do with a peaceful labour relations climate. The change that was outlined in the Liberal campaign literature had to do with opening more hospital beds and improving health care.

The change the Premier preached about four years ago had to do with building whole new university campuses. The Premier made a grand speech in Gander four years ago committing himself, if elected as Premier, to building new university campuses in central Newfoundland, northern Newfoundland, southern Newfoundland, and underlying his commitment to act immediately to enlarge Grenfell College and provide full four year degree programs in Arts and Science there. We have had nothing of the sort, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has turned his back on Grenfell College. That facility, designed for 650 students opened by the PC administration of Frank Moores in 1975 after three short years in office, is now accommodating 1150 students. Discussions are on the go by the Premier and members of the university administration of a token change at Grenfell. What they are concocting is the addition of a few third and fourth year Arts and Science courses which can only be accommodated if first year intake is reduced. How far we have sunk!

Mr. Speaker, back in 1989 the Throne Speech, the first delivered following the election, contained the following statement: A facility similar to Grenfell will be established in central Newfoundland. The curriculum of Sir Wilfred Grenfell in Corner Brook will be expanded to include the third and fourth year courses as quickly as they can reasonably be added. We are still waiting, Mr. Speaker, and what do we get in this Throne Speech? A very muted statement. The word Grenfell does not appear. There is a statement about when resources allow, giving priority to expanding the reach of the university in central and western Newfoundland. Well, in my opinion the reach of the university has clutched too many possessions in St. John's including the Marine Institute.

Remember the Marine Institute? We used to have a Marine Institute in St. John's serving Newfoundland and Labrador and accommodating students from a much wider area. The previous Peckford administration with federal funding built a new facility for the Marine Institute. Where is that now? It has been grabbed by the university. The assets of the Marine Institute are now being divvied up by the university and Cabot. So much for a focus on the training for the fishery of the future. The institution with a mandate to train for the fishery of the future is no more.

Mr. Speaker, so what do we get in the Throne Speech? We got an admission of decline. We got some excuses for inaction. We heard promises for more committees and more studies, and then the big effort to grab attention and inspire people was a pledge by the Premier to fight across Canada for shared management of the fishery. He has been Premier for four years. He has travelled the country from coast to coast. He has made speeches on the Constitution. He has had audiences listening to him expound on his view of how Canada could be organized and did he say one word about shared management of the fishery? Not a word. He inherited the Meech Lake Accord which provided for roles and responsibilities in the fishery as between federal and provincial jurisdictions being priority topics on first ministers conference agendas. He did not even address that provision of the Meech Lake Accord. He denounced the Meech Lake Accord. He defeated the Meech Lake Accord but he did not even talk about the fishery. If you recall he talked about distinct society for Quebec. He did not talk about distinct society for Newfoundland. He did not talk about the distinct fishing communities in Newfoundland. He talked about distinct society for Quebec, talked about the Triple E Senate being our salvation, nothing about shared management of the fishery.

After Meech failed there was a second chance. The Premier represented our Province in the discussions that finally culminated in the Charlottetown Agreement. Now, the Charlottetown Agreement basically addressed everything but the kitchen sink. There were a whole variety of provisions for transfer of jurisdiction and for new administrative arrangements, for sharing of administration between the federal government and various provinces. Was there anything in that about shared management of the fishery? Not one word! Now the Premier, who twists words to suit his own purpose says: oh well, those earlier constitutional agreements only dealt with transfer of jurisdiction, legislative competence and he is not looking for that. He is looking simply for an administrative arrangement. Well that is not true, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Agreement both dealt with administrative arrangements and Clyde Wells ignored all that, squandered four years in office, did not even try, did not even try to get shared management of the fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, early in his term when he was asked about it, he dismissed the notion saying: we in Newfoundland and Labrador could not handle any more responsibility. So, what is the point of even asking. But now, Mr. Speaker, his time is running out, his term is coming to an end.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, with leave I move, seconded by the Member for Grand Bank -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you. I move seconded by the Member for Grand Bank, that all the words after 'that' be deleted in the motion before the House and that the following words be substituted therefore: this House deploys the governments failure to deal adequately with the real problems of unemployment facing our people and its failure to provide competent management of the provincial economy. Mr. Speaker, essentially that is a motion of non-confidence in the government.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and address the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I just made a non-confidence motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair assumed that the motion was in order. The motion appears to the Chair, to be in order.

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Your Honour having -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member on a point of order?

MS. VERGE: Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am just seeking clarification about where we are now. My understanding is that, since Your Honour has ruled my non-confidence motion in order than I am entitled to continue to speak to address the motion of non-confidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will like some follow-up from the Table.

Okay, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is one of non-confidence in the government. A lack of confidence in the government's ability to fulfill the very basic functions of a government. A lack of confidence because this government, after four years in office, after having the chance of four full years, has done nothing to help people, but has foisted on the people of the Province a whole series of measures that have discouraged and depressed. For four years our provincial economy has been in decline, has been in a free-fall -

MR. GRIMES: Do you have that written (inaudible) do we have to listen to this?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations is showing irritation as well he might, as well he might. The minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations is part of the reason that the administration lacks the confidence of the people of the Province. The biggest problem facing our people today is the staggering rate of unemployment, the staggering rate of unemployment. The minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations, has participated along with all the other members opposite in discouraging employment in the Province, essentially imposing taxes that have served as a disincentive to employing people or even doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador, and, Mr. Speaker, after four full years, the members opposite are offering no ideas to reverse this situation.

It is ironic because when they started, they talked about the need for economic recovery. Well, Mr. Speaker, ever since they launched their economic recovery initiative, the economy has been deteriorating more and more and more and more, so if they thought we had some distance to go to recover in 1989, we have got a lot more to reverse by now. Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations has participated with his colleagues in discouraging economic progress, in setting back businesses that have been active here and productive here, he has also failed to take any direct government initiatives of any consequence, to provide meaningful activity for people who cannot find private sector paid employment.

With his colleagues, he has cut thousands of public sector jobs and he has reduced spending for government sponsored employment projects. Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way to address the terrible unemployment problem than simply handing out more and more welfare. What is the excuse for paying welfare to twice as many people today, as were in receipt of social assistance four years ago? How has that been allowed to happen? Are the members opposite, is the minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations saying that there is no choice? Is that the best they can come up with, paying welfare? Is there a conscious policy of preferring welfare to work? Do they not realize the debilitating affects of welfare? Do they not understand that the current welfare regulations make it very difficult for people to escape the welfare trap? He laughs, he reads the paper, he ignores, he is uncomfortable. This Minister of Employment and Labour Relations should go back to the NTA -

MR. HEARN: They won't take him.

MS. VERGE: - they won't take him says the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, I don't wonder why. A past president of the NTA, who was elected on a platform of getting more benefits for teachers and getting more funding for education. What has he done? He has taken part in stripping their contracts and reducing the number of teaching positions, of threatening the whole education system with major setbacks, and he has taken part in a concerted effort to provoke teachers to go on strike.

Mr. Speaker, I can see why the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes says that the NTA would not take back their former president. I would say, the members of that association are very, very, sorry that they were ever sucked in by the rhetoric of him and the Member for Conception Bay South and members of the NTA staff, who gave large amounts of union funds to the Liberals, and worked so hard to get the Liberals elected four years ago.

The Member for Exploits is promising to send Hansard to the NTA. I hope he does that. The NTA, I am sure, is watching very carefully the actions and the words of their former presidents who are now in the Cabinet of this Wells Government. They must have serious misgivings at ever having believed in or trusted their former presidents.

Mr. Speaker, how can the people of the Province be expected to have any confidence in this government when, after four full years in office, the best they can come up with in their Throne Speech is promises of committees of bureaucrats, of a provincial/federal committee of civil servants, and more studies, when the topper of them all is a commitment on the part of the Premier to travel the country to persuade the Canadian people to give us joint management of the fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, joint management of the fisheries is a laudable objective, one I wholeheartedly support, but if Clyde Wells really believes in that, why did he not even try to get a joint management agreement in his first four years in office - in his term in office? Why did he not even talk about the importance to Newfoundland and Labrador of the fishery during his previous constitutional travels? He did a grand tour of Canada on Meech Lake. He did another grand tour of the country on Charlottetown. Now, he is uncomfortable having to be home for an extended period of months dealing with mundane, domestic problems such as unemployment and the economy, health and education. It is quite a come-down from the glory days on the Meech campaign trail, going across Canada, speaking to audiences of rabid Albertans and excited British Columbians, addressing prestigious groups in Toronto - quite a come-down.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier was elected to deal with the mundane problems of jobs, health and education, and if this Premier is not prepared to do that job, and he has shown no inclination to adapt, to buckle down to his responsibilities, then the people of the Province are going to turf him out. The people of the Province have lost faith, are losing confidence, have lost confidence, and that is why I am here making a motion of non-confidence.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are tolerant people. They know that the Wells Administration came to power with fewer of the popular votes in the last election than the PC Opposition got. Because of the distribution of the votes, the Liberals got more seats and they were entitled to form the government.

So, once the change took place, most people were willing to give the new Premier and his new ministers a chance. Most people were patient. Most people were willing to wait a couple of years. Most people acknowledge that some of the troubles were caused by external factors but, Mr. Speaker, people are losing patience. It has been four full years - a whole term. People are realizing that the Premier blew the constitution, he squandered his chance to get joint management of the fishery, he didn't make any effort, he had a golden opportunity, he inherited the Meech Lake Accord, and then he had a second chance with Charlottetown, but he didn't even try.

The Charlottetown Agreement is long and complex. Many people faulted it because it attempted to address too much, but it doesn't say anything about the fishery and people know why, Mr. Speaker, it is because the Premier of Newfoundland didn't even raise the fishery, didn't even ask for a provision for shared management of the fishery.

There were provisions about different arrangements for managing forestry, different arrangements for managing training; those are vital topics for Newfoundland and Labrador. Our Premier didn't say very much about those topics, but he didn't say anything about the fishery, the most important industry of all, the most important resource of all for Newfoundland and Labrador. And now, suddenly, at the very end of his term, at the eve of an election, he has the gall to tell people that they need him to be their saviour, to go out and campaign for shared management of the fishery? People are not that gullible. People are not that gullible, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is very crafty in his use of words and he succeeded in beguiling people in his handling of the Meech Lake Accord but, Mr. Speaker, when he tells the people of the Province that his government never has proposed and never will entertain rolling back public servants' wages, he will just look at unpaid leave or reduction of benefits, Mr. Speaker, people know that he is deliberately misleading them, people realize he is trying to con them. His charms are wearing thinner and thinner, Mr. Speaker.

Somebody referred to what I did in Corner Brook. Yes, I have done many things for the people of Corner Brook and the other communities of Humber East, and when they were given a choice of voting for me to represent them or the man who is now Premier, you know whom they chose. I am standing here speaking now as the Member for Humber East. The Premier didn't get elected to this House of Assembly - after being defeated in Humber East, he had the Liberal Member for Bay of Islands step aside so there would have to be a by-election. The Premier was uncontested. The Premier got his seat here by acclamation, he wasn't voted in here by the people. There is another election coming, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier wouldn't take a second chance on Humber East; he looked at it longingly. He had a poll done last fall -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should see the results (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I should see the results. The Premier did see the results and he walked away from Humber East. He walked away from Humber East. Now, he is running in the Bay of Islands again. Well, we will see what the people in the Bay of Islands do when they have their chance, when voting day comes, we will see what they think of the representation they have had by the current Premier; we will see about that, Mr. Speaker. Humber East may very well not be the first district to reject the current Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province lack confidence in this government. People were willing to give them a chance, people were patient, people endured the first year, they were buoyed up by the Premier's performance on Meech Lake. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians always rally behind the Premier who is standing up to national leaders or external forces, but what do we have to show for it? Where has that got Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? We have nothing to show for it.

The Premier blew his chance to get shared management of the fishery and he doesn't deserve another chance. Turn it over to people who are prepared to govern, people who are prepared to lead and inspire, people who truly believe in joint management of the fishery.

MR. MATTHEWS: It won't be long now.

MS. VERGE: It won't be long, is right. The time has come. It won't be much longer, Mr. Speaker. This is March 8th. I would say, two-and-a-half months, two-and-a-half, maximum, is all they have left, Mr. Speaker. That is all the Wells Administration has left. They have run out of ideas. They are sputtering. They started off talking about immediate economic action, expanding the economy, creating more jobs, bringing mothers' sons home from the Mainland, building new university campuses. They dreamed grand dreams but they very, very quickly jettisoned those ideas and now, in March 1992 the Premier admits to having managed decline. There has certainly been decline, decline on every front, decline in people's expectations, worst of all, but there hasn't been good management. There has been mismanagement. The government voiced some good ideas along the way and in a few instances tried to implement them, but almost without fail, bungled and botched the administration. This government has been inept at managing. It has been very, very effective, though, at public relations. The slick PR work dazzled people for the first three years or so, but that is wearing thin now, too. People are beginning to see through that. Smoke and mirrors worked for awhile, but not indefinitely, and the time is running out on this sorry, sad administration. Time is running out. People are losing confidence. Many of us have lost confidence. Mr. Speaker, the only course for us now is to support the motion of non-confidence, dissolve the Legislature, and let us go to the people, because they really do not even deserve another two-and-a-half months. The sooner we give the people of the Province a chance to vote on this administration, the better.

Forty-seven per cent of the people voted for real change in 1989, but they did not vote for the kind of change that has occurred. They voted for growth. They voted for more jobs. They voted for improved health care. They voted for a better university education, and what have they got? - The dead opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to get up and support the gracious Speech from the Throne that was delivered last week by the Lieutenant-Governor. I want to speak to it and support it for all the right reasons. I want to speak to it because of the good government that this administration has brought to this Province over the last four years. I want to speak to it as well, to point out some of the alternatives that are being offered by members opposite.

Obviously I am not going to have enough time to do all of that today, so I just want to concentrate on the reasons - the right reasons - why we are pleased on this side of the House to support the government, to support the Throne Speech, and to support the initiatives being taken by our ministers.

I want to talk about a number of things, but particularly the main thrust of the Throne Speech as it was delivered the other day, and that is on joint management of the fishery.

The Minister of Fisheries has put forward a proposal to the federal government for joint management of the fishery that is second to none - second to no initiative that has ever been put forward in this Province since 1949 respecting our fishery. It is a very comprehensive, thoroughly thought out document that will certainly have great benefit to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about joint management of the fishery because I believe it is the most important thing to ever come to this Province, and will have the most effect upon the people in the future. I want to talk about it because I know that there are members opposite who do not support joint management of the fishery. They do not support joint management of the fishery because they are afraid that it will give the people of this Province some say over their lives. Now, I think that the people of this Province, as the election is forthcoming, Mr. Speaker, must be told the record that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is standing up and pronouncing. Mr. Speaker, they must be told because they must be held accountable when they go to ask for their votes in the next election.

The hon. Lady who just spoke talked about how we have not pronounced our view on joint management of the fishery during the constitutional talks. I say look no further than to her immediate right, look to her hon. Leader, Mr. Speaker, who stood up here in the House last Thursday and spoke for thirty-five or forty minutes and there was not one word on the fishery in the whole speech from opening to closing, not one word on joint management, not one word on the fishery, Mr. Speaker. Now, what kind of priorities does the Opposition have? What kind of a message is it giving to rural Newfoundland and Labrador? What kind of a message is it giving to the people of this Province, when he is saying that all of our problems are second to the fishery? All of our problems are taking a diminished role to the fishery. Is this the record that he is saying? Is this the record that is he going to be going out through rural Newfoundland and Labrador saying to his candidates to stand up against joint management of the fishery? Is this the word that he is going to be giving, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, there is no plan, there is no future, there is no vision for the fishery from the members Opposite.

I was very, very, disappointed today, Mr. Speaker, to have the hon. House Leader, who will get a chance to thoroughly debate it on Wednesday, but to have the hon. House Leader opposite say to the people of this Province that we want you to take the licenses away from 100 plants in this Province, 100 communities should die, we want you, Minister of Fisheries and you, Premier, to say to these communities that you must relocate, you must get out of the fishery because there is no place for you and do not go behind smoke and mirrors.

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that while Bill speaks, it is John's hand that is behind him, Mr. Speaker. Everybody knows that what is being said over on the other side is from John Crosbie. Nobody else in this Province, Mr. Speaker, nobody else is speaking to the people of this Province, other than John Crosbie. He is using the Opposition over there because of his political agenda, Mr. Speaker. Now, that is the truth and they will have to defend it. They will have to go to the people and defend why they want to close down 100 communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They will have to say to the people of Black Tickle why they want that license taken away. They will have to say to the people of St. Anthony why that license must be taken away, to the people of Twillingate, to the people of Harbour Breton, why they want those licences taken out - because of some bureaucratic model on economic feasibility that has been thought up in Ottawa.

I think it is shameful, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition would come to a point where they have turned their backs on rural Newfoundland and Labrador, turned their backs on the fishery, the very backbone of our Province and our economy.

Then, of course, there is the other hon. gentleman in the House, from the New Democratic Party, where he has his right wing, his lieutenant, his main man for the union, out there pronouncing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: His, yes, his right-hand man, out there saying: This is the vision of the NDP. Richard Cashin is the man out there saying what the NDP wants to have done. In an interview on Friday, on NTV, he said: The Province can't suck and blow at the same time. Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to sucking and blowing, we have just heard the mother of all suckers and blowers in the Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was no mean suck to get $800 a day from Keith Spicer. It was no mean suck to get another $3 million of the Northern cod money. It was no mean suck to go up to Ottawa and say: 'We're going to tear this place apart,' and come out and he couldn't get his hand in his back pocket, because he was given another $150,000 contract! That is the kind of sucking and blowing that we have seen from the NDP and the members opposite!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I can't believe that the Leader of the Opposition would be standing, Mr. Speaker, and saying: Yes, we believe that this is the way the Province should develop, this is the way that the future of the fishery should go.

The people of this Province will have their say. They will have their say. They will know the record of the Opposition. They will know that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't give two cents for the fishery, doesn't care what happens outside the overpass of this city. He doesn't have a policy on the fishery. There are no alternatives. It is all pie-in-the-sky. I tell you that the people of this Province will be thoroughly briefed. We will make them accountable for their actions.

In the next couple of minutes, if I might, I will just caption, maybe, what the next campaign will be all about. The next campaign is going to be about two things: leadership and good government. That's what it is going to be about, and under good government, we have seen nothing to propose an alternative from the other side. We have seen no policy, we have seen no vision, we have seen no commitment. All we have is a record of despair and a record of deficits, a record of credit rating falls. That is the record on which they have to go out there, and that is not going to be good enough, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, we have seen campaigns in the past where they have asked: 'Where's the beef?' Obviously, there will be no beef, but the second component of this campaign in the coming weeks will be on leadership. We are going to be standing and saying to the people of this Province that we have a leader whom we have been proud to support, who has put forward a strategic economic plan for this Province, something that was not done since Confederation.

We did not come back with a blow-your-mind Premier. We did not turn our backs on the people and say, 'We are going back to the thirties.' We didn't do that. We had a leader who had a vision, had a commitment, who stood and was counted and made the decisions that had to be made. We did not have somebody who turned his back on the people of this Province and turned his back on the generations to come.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, apart from 'Where's the beef?' there will also be another little quote in the next campaign. It will be 'Where's the leader?' That is what it is going to be. Where is the leader? We are not going to find a leader, I bet you - you can mark this down - that in the next campaign you will not know who is the Leader of the Opposition over there. You will not know. They are going to say: We have to go out and put forward a policy of putting people first. They are not going to put forward a leader, Mr. Speaker, because the people of this Province know the record of that person and that crowd, and they are not about to turn back the clock and re-elect them for the dismal record that they built up over seventeen years.

I will have a chance tomorrow, with another few minutes, to expound on it, and I am sure hon. members are looking forward to it. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. friend from Eagle River moved the adjournment of the debate. The good news is, since we are on an amendment, he will be able to speak, not only when this debate is called again, but in the debate on the main motion. Then we will see where we go.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.

MR. GRIMES: Can't we sit tonight?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I say to my friend from Exploits, we will not sit tonight, despite his urgings.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, as I have advised my hon. friends opposite, we shall call Bill No. 1, the Conflict of Interest bill, for debate. That stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Finance. Wednesday is Private Members' Day, and we will carry on from there.

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