November 29, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 41


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I am pleased to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery today the ten members of the Provincial Teen Tobacco Team. These young men and women represent the youth component for the tobacco strategy, and are from various regions across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is a very important day for the people of our Province. For years we have understood the devastating effects of cigarette smoke on our health. We are alarmed at the number of people who die every year because of this horrible habit. At least 1,000 people alone will die in Newfoundland and Labrador this year. Millions will die all over the world.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador takes this issue very seriously. Today we are moving forward with a $900,000 commitment that we made early last winter when we announced the formation of a provincial tobacco coalition. Today we know this group as the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, or ACT. For several months, ACT has been working diligently, and this morning at a news conference in St. John's, ACT's chairperson, Ms Paula Ewing, and I launched the Provincial Tobacco Reduction Strategy.

This strategy has four main goals: prevention, protection, cessation and de-normalization. Education and communication is seen as a key strategic direction to ensure all sectors are aware of a benefits of a healthy lifestyle and the negative consequences of tobacco use. The strategy also outlines directions concerning legislation, enforcement, and community support programs, among others.

An important part of the overall tobacco strategy for the Province is the youth component. On November 16 I announced the formation of a Teen Tobacco Team who will work with me, officials from my department, and ACT on tobacco issues of particular interest to youth. Today I am honored to present the members of our first ever Teen Tobacco Team to the House of Assembly. They are seated, as the Speaker pointed out, in the gallery.

These youth include: Josh Furneaux, St. John's; Jeremy Babstock, St. John's, Kathy Reddy, St. John's; Victoria Burry, Clarenville; Jennifer Graham, Burin; Tara Young, Springdale; Craig Loder, Sops Arm; Shirley Hill, NorthWest River; Rachel Luther, St. Lewis; and Christopher Sheppard, Postville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: This team will be a voice for all young people in our Province on how to tackle tobacco issues. Our goal on this front is the development of a Youth Tobacco Strategy for our Province. We look forward to our new team for input and consultation in developing this strategy.

Members of our Teen Tobacco Team have been chosen with the assistance of many organizations. These include: Big Brothers, Big Sisters; Boys and Girls Clubs of Newfoundland and Labrador; Allied Youth; Class of 2000 Smoking Prevention Program; FINALY, which is Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador Youth; Girl Guides; Community Youth Networks; Labrador Inuit Health Care Commission; Health Labrador Corporation; and Health and Community Services Eastern Division.

 

The efforts of these organizations have proved invaluable. They have chosen a very dynamic team of youth who have committed themselves to addressing tobacco issues.

I am sure all hon. members today will join me in congratulating ACT, the new Teen Tobacco Team and the employees of Health and Community Services on their work to make our Province a healthier one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly welcome the members of the tobacco team here to the House of Assembly and congratulate them on taking the initiative to do something positive to stamp out the effects of smoking on young people and the public in general.

It is at that level, it is the youth, that we have to listen to because that is where it all starts. Not being dictated from the top down by adults trying to tell us what is best for youth. It is youth themselves being proactive in the process, and that is great to see.

I would also certainly like to say to the minister that at the same time this announcement was made there was also an announcement made by this government that they were going to sue the tobacco companies for untold millions of dollars of costs on our health care system today. I have not seen anything in the courts, or anything initiated to this particular point. I know British Columbia has moved forward. Of course, we are familiar with what has happened in the U.S. I certainly hope, I say to the minister, that the $65 million that we get in tobacco taxes for the treasury of this Province is not a deterrent for proceeding and taking direct positive action for the untold millions of dollars of costs on our health care system today, and the agony and the anguish that people have to suffer because of the effects of smoking today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Congratulations to the teens present here today. As we know, it is important that we get the teens involved in fighting the use of tobacco. Tobacco companies are targeting teens to try and get them hooked at an early age to ensure their financial durability in the years to come.

The tobacco campaign that tobacco companies have taken in recent years has been using more and stronger addictive materials in their cigarettes to make sure that people have a more difficult time trying to quit. I think that education, not legislation, is they key. Through education, I think we can accomplish things that by and large we would not be able to do through any other means. It is important that we have teens working with teens to try and accomplish this and get it started. You never know; maybe, at the end of the day, the teens can teach a few adults in our society a few smart things as well.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I joined representatives of twenty community based organizations to announce funding for the final series of demonstration projects for this fiscal year under the Province's Strategic Social Plan. The amount of funding for these twenty projects totals $687,000. Combined with projects already awarded during the summer, Government has funded $1.2 million to community based organizations.

Our government acknowledges the value of the contribution that community based organizations make, not only to social development in their communities but also to economic development. In fact, these organizations are one of the major partners in implementing the Strategic Social Plan. That is why in May of this year, I encouraged community organizations to adopt and support the Strategic Social Plan by establishing new partnerships with each other and with government. To facilitate this approach, we made available a $1.2 million dollar fund which community groups could access for projects that explore new and more effective ways of addressing social issues in their communities.

The response to this initiative was extremely high. We received 130 proposals from communities throughout the Province. The overwhelming response speaks to their desire to participate in future social and economic development. In keeping with the goals and objectives set out by the Strategic Social Plan, projects approach social and economic issues from a preventive and early intervention perspective. Projects also focus on ways to invest in communities to make them strong and viable.

I have included a summary of the projects released today, for my colleagues in the House, to give them an idea of the wide scope of issues being examined and they types of initiatives we, as a government, are very proud to support.

After today, thirty-nine projects will be operating all over Newfoundland and Labrador from St. John's to Harbour Breton, Port aux Basques to Twillingate, Conception Bay North to North West River, and there are other points even more distant. My colleagues and I look forward to some exciting and informative outcomes from these initiatives when the projects are completed.

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the Strategic Social Plan is moving ahead. The steering committee in the central region is making good progress. Comprised of representatives from the regional health, education and economic development boards, they are the catalysts for further engaging communities to participate as full partners in the Plan. I was pleased to provide funding so the committee could hire a regional planner to support and help the work of this committee. Their regional planner is from Campbellton, Newfoundland, has a Masters Degree in social work with an extensive background in community development, and coincidently has returned home to Newfoundland from Ontario to work here. We expect to bring the Plan to two more regions of the Province this winter.

Another integral part of the Plan is the Social Audit which is being designed by the very capable people with the Newfoundland Statistics Agency and a working group of the Premier's Council on Social Development. The Social Audit will provide evidence based information to be used by government and community boards in shaping future social policies and programs.

Our strong, prosperous future is based on healthy, educated, confident people. The Strategic Social Plan and the Strategy on Jobs and Growth will help to secure this future by engaging citizens at the community level to define their needs and work together to meet the challenges in our communities and our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to see that these twenty organizations got their funding today, and these organizations are certainly to be commended on the work that they do. The fact that so many people did not get funding means that there is a significant number of people out there who are still falling through the cracks.

One of the statements in the minister's statement is, “Our strong, prosperous future is based on healthy, educated, confident people”. Hungry children cannot learn and cannot get educated. As long as we are having children going to school hungry because food bank shelves are empty, and in many cases when they get to school they remain hungry, in the absence of a universal school lunch program, we will not attain strong, healthy, educated and confident people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of these programs that people are undertaking are certainly very valid and helpful, but I want to say that demonstration projects and pilot projects are not the answer. We do know that some things work. The better futures program has already proven itself as being successful. The special programs for single parents have already proven themselves to be successful. A universal, comprehensive school lunch program is guaranteed to ensure that school children will have an opportunity to learn better.

We should start concentrating on implementing some of the things that we know will work and will improve the ability of people in our communities and in our Province to participate more fully in society. We should start working on them and not just experiment with other ideas. Let's put the ideas that we know will work to work, making our Province a better place to live.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy regarding the discussions ongoing with Inco. I would like to ask him today... The minister right now has the authority - or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has the authority - to issue a mining lease or a milling lease to any company without coming before the Legislature. The Minister of Mines and Energy can issue this lease under the Minerals and Mine Act, with no requirement really for further debate, only a Ministerial Statement. Any subsequent discussion from there would be after the fact, and obviously of no real consequence if the decision is taken.

I would like to ask the minister today, on behalf of the people of the Province: Before any agreement is reached, or - if, sorry - if an agreement is reached, is there a commitment from government - and can the minister explain if there is or is not - will they bring any deal before this House before any mine or milling lease is given to the company so it can be thoroughly debated and seen by the people of the Province through the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is no.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: He must be taking lessons from the Minister of Education in Question Period.

What he is saying, then, is that any agreement that is reached between the government and Inco, he will not and government will not bring it before this Legislature for debate before it is signed. Is that what the Minister of Mines and Energy is saying?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any agreement that is forthcoming will be done in accordance with the law of the land.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister of Mines and Energy, you will not, on behalf of government, bring any deal reached with Inco before this House for debate before you sign it? Is that what you are telling the people of the Province, Minister?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing footloose and fancy free with the people's resources. I would like to ask him this question - and his answers are wearing about as thin as the elbows on the suit that he is wearing today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is this: Friday, in the Legislature, the Minister of Mines and Energy said that he has never said that - words were important. I read Hansard. He said that words were important and that if he is sensitive over words it is because he is. He indicated that he has never said, anywhere, at anytime, that 100 per cent of concentrate will be here; but what he has said is that full processing will occur. We have on the record of Hansard where the Premier has said that no agreement will be reached unless 100 per cent of the concentrate will be processed in this Province.

The question for the minister is this, and for government generally, and the minister can answer on behalf of government: Is it a condition of the provincial government, in its discussions and negotiations with Inco, that, before any deal is signed, 100 per cent of the concentrate or of the ore will be finished here, and that what will ultimately end up at the end of the process - of the full processing - is a finished nickel product?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there have been enough answers given in the last week with respect to everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador maybe, except the Leader of the Opposition, understanding that the product that will leave Newfoundland and Labrador will be nickel metal, the same as if it was done through a smelter and refinery.

It was part of my answer last week. I expect he is the only person in Newfoundland and Labrador who does not understand that. The product will be nickel metal. There will be full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, and any agreement that is entered into will be done according to any of the requirements of the law in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final supplementary. I would like to ask the minister, with respect to the issue of any taxation regime, equalization royalties: Will he make a commitment from government to bring the details of any tax or royalty regime to the House before a mining lease is approved by government with this possible deal?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Words are very important, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition will try to misrepresent what I have answered here today. What I am saying with respect to my answer is this: Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador will know the details of any arrangement between the government and Inco. Now, whether that happens when the Legislature is sitting, or whether it happens when the Legislature is not sitting - it might be within days or weeks, it might be months, or it might be years - I am not in a position to give a commitment that, before any lease is given to Inco or anybody else, we would have to make sure that the Legislature is in session, that the Legislature is convened, and that it would have to be debated in the Legislature.

The laws of the land that require things to happen will be followed, and we can only hope that we do have something to present to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador sooner rather than later.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, NEOS has made an offer to purchase Fishery Products International. One of the conditions of the proposal is that the Legislature remove existing constraints on the ownership and operation of FPI before the end of the December or soon after. Minister, do you plan to bring legislation to the House before we recess for Christmas to rescind or amend existing legislation that places constraints on the ownership and management of Fishery Products International?

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

MR. EFFORD: If I understand the question, do we plan to? No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, if government does not plan on bringing legislation before the House in this sitting, does the government have any intentions whatsoever of bringing in legislation, should another proposal be made to the present government, to be brought back to this House?

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

MR. EFFORD: It is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker.

 

This is too serious an issue to be flippant about, and to give a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. Simply put, this is the biggest public policy with regard to the fishing industry that I have known about for quite a number of years, and I am not going to take it lightly.

I just got back from the Northern Peninsula this morning, where I met with a group of people. One of the mayors of one of the communities questioned me after I left the meeting and said: What are you going to do with the NEOS proposal? I said, we are waiting first of all for a full analysis of all of the things that they are committing. I would like to see how they propose - the debt load that they propose after they would take over FPI.

There are a lot of unanswered questions. At the same time, people, as this mayor pointed out this morning, would like to have FPI coming into their communities and telling them what their plans are for the future in each and every community.

To say no to this proposal at this time, or to say yes to this proposal at this time, no, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that. I want the fishing industry to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for the long term, not for 2000-2001 but for the long term. This is too major a policy to take it lightly, not to ask questions from all parties. Here we have FPI asking us to lift the 15 per cent. We have the fishing industry as a whole saying, lift the 15 per cent. Why? Because it restricts a company from moving forward.

When I am ready to advise my Cabinet colleagues of all of the full analyses of both parties, then and only then will we make a decision on what is in the best interest of either one of the companies, or the people in particular - when I say, in the best interests of the companies, what will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. EFFORD: - in this fishing industry for the long, long term.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to get a clear understanding here, Minister, because people are concerned and we are talking about the future of people out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Sometimes in preambles we can lose the intent of what the answer was.

I would like for the minister to be perfectly clear when he answers this question. Did I correctly understand you when you said that there would be no legislation tabled in this session of the House of Assembly looking at rescinding the 15 per cent cap on Fishery Products International?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that there is not a full understanding of the fisheries policy in the Party opposite, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Seriously.

I was just handed this a couple of minutes ago because I was gone all morning. (Inaudible) obtained legislative approval to sell or transfer ownership of its harvesting, processing or marketing units.

We have a restrictive policy of transfer, of harvesting or processing in this Province. It is already here. We do not allow ITQs. Processing - if anybody wants to transfer a processing license from one company to another, from a community to another community, we say: You must come to provincial government. We brought that policy in, in 1996.

Do we plan to bring in legislation in this sitting of the House of Assembly? We do not have any plans to bring legislation in to change that rule in this sitting of the House of Assembly.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he has outlined his concerns with regards to the NEOS proposal in their representation to take Fishery Products International...?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined my concerns to both FPI and NEOS, but here is my real concern: Some of the opposition to the NEOS proposal is based on personalities, and I have a real concern about that.

Such a major investment in the fishing industry in 1999, when only seven years ago everybody in this Province thought the fishery industry was over - it is gone, boys, it is gone - today we have a $900 million export. We have a group of companies, regardless of who they are, willing to invest $280 million into a fishing industry, and unless I ask all the questions and get all the answers satisfactory to myself, as minister, to advise my Cabinet colleagues - but the communities themselves, the mayors, the municipalities, should bring in both sides to their communities and ask each one of them: What are your legitimate plans for the future of my community?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to complete his answer quickly.

MR. EFFORD: Do not pass it off on personalities, or not really understanding the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. Minister, sick people are waiting for several months to get diagnostic testing such as CAT scans and MRIs. To get an urgent CAT scan, you have to wait two to three months, and people have to wait over six months for MRIs. There are over 2,000 people on a waiting list now, and they do as little as 100 per week.

This is all happening when millions of dollars worth of machinery are lying idle from early evening until the next morning. Minister, I am sure you are aware of the increasing wait. I want to ask you: What actions are you proposing to correct this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first question I would ask, in response to the question, is: Have you spoken to the Health Care Corporation about some of the restrictions around operating an MRI, for example, more than the current hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.? First of all, there is the issue of staffing; second of all, there is the issue of an equipment upgrade; and, third of all, it is about the life of the whole machine.

I would say that emergent patients in this Province have MRIs performed within a few hours. Urgent patients - and you know they are triaged and classified - wait an average of four to six weeks. Elective patients wait longer, sometimes six months. That is accurate. There are many factors involved in looking at upgrading and increasing the utilization of any machinery in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have spoken to the Health Care Corporation in response to your question. In fact, the health care association, I asked them. They do not have a budget for their health care from this department yet for this year. They do not know what they are allowed to spend, I say to the minister.

I spoke on Friday with a lady who was diagnosed with lung cancer one month ago. She now has to wait until the end of January to get a CAT scan before anything can be done. Minister, that is three months. This woman is going out of her mind waiting, knowing she has cancer. She, by the way, works in our health care system. What do you say to this woman who cannot get the help she needs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to put a bit of fact in with the preamble that the member just raised. First of all, the boards do have their budgets. They are waiting for the allocation of the remaining amount. If you were to talk to the boards they will tell you that they have their budgets. What they do not have is the remaining allocation of the $23 million.

With respect to the individual case, again, I would say to that person that because she worked in the health care system she should not get any more special treatment than anybody else, Mr. Speaker, and that she would be triaged.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You made a reference in your comments that she even worked in the system, as though she should have some special waiting procedure. Mr. Speaker, that is totally inaccurate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite know that people are triage. Yes, it is no wonder we have problems with questions and insinuations like that coming across the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have spoken to doctors and patients and people within the Corporation who tell me that they have to wait two months to get an urgent CAT scan. I have spoken to people, and medical doctors will tell you, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: When is the minister going to do something about the long wait? This health report in Maclean's took in sixteen cities in Canada. We were the third last. Halifax was third and we were fourteen.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. SULLIVAN: When is the minister going to do something to correct this problem here so people can get the help they need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important again that the member opposite speaks to the Health Care Corporation about the waiting times associated. Emergent patients have MRIs performed within a few hours; urgent have four to six weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), no!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, that is the information that I have from the Health Care Corporation.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you better get your facts straight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Anybody can pick an individual case. When you are dealing with 35,000or 40,000 people, hundreds of thousands of people a year, it is no problem when (a) you do not have to be responsible, and (b) you do not have to be accountable. You can pick anything and go for miles on it. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that if you speak to the people who are in charge of the waiting list they will tell you that emergent patients are done within a few hours. They are triaged and done in consultation with specialists and nobody gets put ahead of the line or behind the line.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You get the test based on the needs that are triaged by the attending physicians.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Health. I could not believe what I heard here Friday morning. Quite frankly, I was a bit discussed with it actually when the most senior Liberal caucus member spoke on Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act. While he spoke well, generally, of the health care system I do have very serious concerns of where the Member for Terra Nova points the finger at the cause for waiting lines.

Let me quote from Hansard where he was speaking on waiting (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that he cannot quote from any material.

MR. J. BYRNE: Generally speaking, what he said was that the waiting lines in hospitals are due to the arrogance of doctors. I ask the minister: Do you agree with the Member for Terra Nova that the arrogance of doctors is one of the main reasons for delays and long waiting lists in the health care system? You can look at page 1,540 of Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not prepared to comment on anything that anyone said if I have not read it or seen it myself. I was not in the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I was attending ministers' meetings on Friday. I was not in the House. I do not know to which the member opposite was reading from when he was reading his question. I would have to comment on that. I like to get some information before I make comments on any issue.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the minister that she can read page 1,540 of the Hansard. The Member for Terra Nova was speaking on waiting lines in hospitals and referring to the arrogance of doctors.

Minister, with other provinces increasing salaries for doctors to recruit and retain doctors, is it any wonder with an attitude of this type from government members that this Province is having very serious problems recruiting and retaining doctors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, you know when there isn't an issue it is really good to create an issue. I think we can only stand on our record. We negotiated a $32 million collective agreement for the physicians. In addition to that, we have put rural bonuses in place, we have had a recruitment plan in place. Last year, we had a record number of our own graduates choose to stay and work in our Province.

I know the members opposite do not want to hear it. In fact, when the Minister of Finance last week read that we had a credit upgrade they looked depressed over there. They were upset. The reality is that we have been actively recruiting, we have been working with the boards, and we are pleased that we are doing the best we can.

Mr. Speaker, let me share this with you, and again this is something -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I will say, I attended a ministers' meeting last week. I heard from physicians right across this country. While the members opposite would like to think we have the monopoly on recruitment and retention issues, we do not. Major, huge provinces in this country are having very difficult times recruiting, particularly rural areas. We are continuing to work hard and we will not be discouraged by comments like that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Terra Nova also referred to members on this side of the House - and we have seen an example of it today - raising expectations in the public by asking questions on health care in this House of Assembly.

I ask the minister: What did the Premier do two days before the election in February when he came back from Ottawa with $40 million for health care for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador which turned out to be $3.6 million? Wasn't that unduly raising the expectations of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to health care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite read about the money we have put in health care over the last number of years, we put much more money in than we have actually gotten, there is no doubt about it.

I will say, while the members opposite might accuse us of raising expectations, you can put it on your books that if anything happens to our publicly funded health care system because of fearmongering and calling every situation a crisis, let the record show they led the way in the downfall of our publicly funded health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Madam Minister, you are aware that in Labrador for the Air Ambulance Program, when people have to be flown out by air and they are released from hospital, there is no way back for them if they cannot travel by a regular airline seat. If they are a stretcher case or if they for other reasons cannot sit for prolonged periods, there is no way for them to get back home.

I ask the minister: Is she prepared to take immediate action to correct this situation by guaranteeing their passage back on the air ambulance flight if they cannot get back through any other means of airlines?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The air ambulance service in the Province really is run by my department, although the Department of Health is a sort of a client department. It comes through Works, Services and Transportation. All use of the air ambulance in the Province is dictated by the doctors. If the individual's doctor says they must travel by air ambulance, they will. In some cases, if there are patients in hospitals in the Province, for instance in Corner Brook, St. John's, Labrador or wherever, and they are waiting to be returned home, if they have an emergency going into that area they will wait and take a couple of patients at a time back, whether it is to St. John's, Labrador or anywhere else in the Province. That has been done. Really, it is up to the patient's doctor to dedicate whether that air ambulance is used.

Air ambulance this year has gone up by some 50 per cent to 60 per cent. It was something like $1 million last year and is up over $1.6 million or $1.7 million already this year. It is not spared. If the doctor says they must go, they will go. We have the King Air and the Commander used all the time, twenty-four hours a day. Not only that, when they are in use we will go to other airlines: Pal, Cougar, whoever. People are not stuck once the doctor dictates that that patient must be moved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

 

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, when a doctor calls for a plane to respond it is an emergency. What I am referring to is the question of when a patient is released from hospital. As we have had, in this Province, on a number of occasions, I know people from Labrador who have been released in body casts. The regular airlines will not take anyone on a stretcher, they cannot sit in an airline seat, and therefore their getting back home is dependent upon somebody else in Labrador having an emergency. I ask the minister: If a doctor recommends that a patient be transported home after surgery, would the plane be put on?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, there is not a case that has been brought to my attention where a doctor anywhere, in any health care institution in this Province, has requested the use of any of our air ambulance. Even, like I said, if they had been in use - I had a case just last week, a request where both the King Air and the Commander were in use. We had one other airline in the Province already in use, called. That was the third one. We put in a fourth to bring patients - I think it was from St. John's to Deer Lake, in order to go to Corner Brook. I do not know of anyone... If it is requested by a doctor - not only from Labrador. Those cases are happening on the Island. I have had cases similar to what the member has described here today moved from St. John's to Gander, from St. John's to Deer Lake, from St. Anthony to St. John's. It does not matter. If the doctor says they must travel by air ambulance, they will, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to be absolutely clear, because there have been cases where people have waited for long periods of time to get back home, I can name a six-year-old young fellow who was released from the hospital here in a body cast. Both of his parents had to remain here with him, one at the risk of losing their job because they could not return home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: I would like to say that we made repeated calls and finally did get the plane put on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you got it put on.

MR. COLLINS: Yes, after repeated calls and a lot of stress to the family.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. COLLINS: What I want to ask the minister is: Would it be automatic? If a doctor requests the airline be put on to transport patients back home, would that be part of the policy right now?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the policy, first of all, when it comes to air ambulance, is emergency cases. That is first. Second - and I explained this in the first question about the request for use of air ambulance - is this. If it is not considered an emergency then that patient will wait. If we have a plane going today from St. John's to Deer Lake to pick up a patient, for instance in Deer Lake, as an emergency, we will accommodate. In my experience, in my short time in the department, they will send that patient to Deer Lake. Or if it is to Labrador, if it is to Halifax. We have gone all over Atlantic Canada, we have gone into the U.S., we have gone out west to the rest of Canada. So, emergency first, and if it isn't an emergency the patient will wait there and when they are moved, if we have to go on another mission, we will accommodate that particular individual. It is not up to me, it is not up to the Minister of Health, it is up to the doctors in that area, but emergencies are first.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today, I guess, are for the acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Exactly four years ago, on November 29, 1995, the Opposition raised questions in this hon. House as to the future of air controller positions in Gander. Considering that these services were being privatized and taken over by a company called NAV Canada, I ask the minister: Is it a fact that a number of air traffic controller positions are presently being compromised due to the restructuring of air space?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that answer but I will check for the hon. member and get it for him right after Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minster, and I look forward to his answer. I also like to tell the minister that over the next three years there will thirty-eight fewer direct jobs in Gander, with a loss to the local economy of $3.8 million. Again, I would like to ask the minister, who is not in her seat today, exactly what her plan is, or what she plans to do about the loss of this money for the Town of Gander?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the minister is away on government business but I will certainly take the question as notice because it is directed to her. I noticed he said, “what she” and what her plans are, so I will certainly ask her for you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, one quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I would like to ask the minister: Was he given any notice of the drastic action taken by Inter Canadian airlines during the past weekend? Has his department been involved in any discussions with Inter Canadian in regards to their future plans for Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was taken by surprise just like everybody else in the Province on Sunday morning when I woke up to find that Inter Canadian had cancelled all their flights as of 12:00 midnight, Saturday.

Nothing new for me as it pertains to Inter Canadian; when they pulled out of Deer Lake and Gander some time ago, I was not even notified. They did not have the decency and the protocol to notify me, as provincial minister, that they we doing such a thing. I wrote the company at that time and the explanation I got back was that they were looking for more gate space in Montreal, Toronto, and Quebec. It had nothing to do with the cancellation of services here.

I tried today to contact them. No answer. There is absolutely no contact whatsoever, a lack of communication.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova, on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to remarks made by the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis when referred to the remarks that I had made. I just want to say that, in my remarks, I was simply talking about the waiting list in doctors' waiting rooms, and had said there was a certain tendency on the part of doctors, a certain arrogance if you wish, in not attending to, in a more sensitive matter, the busy schedules of the people that they serve, and had made the suggestion that I think that this sort of permeated the whole system and was administrative, structural and systemic.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was trying to put his own spin on this, in making his negative and scurrilous remarks, and I would suggest that he was out of order and trying to put a wedge between this side and the dedicated and competent doctors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member took the opportunity, I guess, to clarify statements that he had made a few days ago.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House of Assembly. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the areas of the Province administered by the provincial Health Care Corporation do not have dialysis services available, and the people in our area who require regular dialysis services often must relocate permanently to St. John's and incur the financial and emotional costs of being uprooted to get the health care they need in order to live; and

WHEREAS it is our understanding that the working dialysis units are being sent out of the Province to other countries when the local need is great; and

WHEREAS it is a principle of Canada's Medicare system that people should have reasonable access to basic health care services without suffering discrimination on the basis of where they live;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to approve the stationing of a dialysis unit in the area serviced by the Peninsula Health Care Corporation and also provide staff, training and resources, to ensure the regular operation of this dialysis unit.

 

Mr. Speaker, today I present another petition as brought forward by residents of - this one came from Bonavista South and Trinity North, I say to members opposite, where people are recognizing the great need to have a dialysis unit stationed somewhere within the region, under control of the Peninsula Health Care Corporation. The reason for wanting it there is not a matter of convenience, if you would, but it is certainly a matter of necessity.

I have relayed stories here before of how seniors down in my own district, who live three-and-a-half or four hours drive from St. John's; have had to go and board up their windows, move into St. John's, rent an apartment, buy second-hand furniture, in order to be close to a dialysis unit.

I have related another story about an individual from Bonavista Bay who has been coming back and forth to St. John's for in excess of four years now, getting up in the morning, putting his clothes and food aboard the box of his truck - well, his wife actually has to put it aboard because the man is not able to carry even his clothing or his food to his vehicle to get into St. John's. He has to come in here, check into the hostel, and remain there all week to return home again on a Friday morning; on the dialysis machine three times a week, and the only option he has is to come in here and stay at the hostel, being paid for by the department of social services. The gentleman was a hard worker all his life. In fact, he had his own little construction company and was very independent. Now he finds himself - having spent his whole life's savings - has now had to go on social services in order to be able to access this particular medical treatment.

What those people are asking for - and the numbers are approximately twenty to twenty-five on the Bonavista Peninsula, the Clarenville area alone, from my understanding. I don't know how many are on the Burin Peninsula, but there are certainly at least probably the same number. All they are asking for is that a dialysis machine be put somewhere in the vicinity of the Peninsula Health Care Board where it would service the greatest number of people. They are saying we do not expect to see a dialysis unit - to put one in Bonavista, put one in Clarenville, put one in Burin; that is not the intent. They are asking for a dialysis machine to be located in a central area so they might be able to at least go home at night, at least be able to get up in the morning, go and take their treatment, and go back to their homes at night. I do not think that is asking too much, as we enter the new millennium.

When you hear the Minister of Finance talk about how well off we are on current account and how the deficit is now going to be done away with, and when you see us looking forward and reducing income tax, it makes those people wonder what has happened to their plea, if it is falling on deaf ears or if government or decision-makers care any more. I know that this is a plea that has been coming to this House, through me and through the health care critic - it is a plea that has been coming to me and to the health care critic from individuals involved -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and I ask the government if they would look favorably upon this request and on the petitions that are being brought forward by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 8, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act”. (Bill 27). I believe the Minister of Health was speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could revert to a couple of first readings? The Clerk has just reminded me that there are a couple we should do.

Motion 4 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, you did not. You can stand up. Go ahead, we will revert to Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to revert to Petitions?

Petitions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to support the petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South pertaining to dialysis services under the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation. As we know today, there are only three areas in this Province where people can avail of renal dialysis at health care institutions. Up to less than two years ago it was only at two locations in the Province, Corner Brook and St. John's. Central Newfoundland was fortunate enough in the past couple of years to be able to have that service provided there. The people in the area even, in Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, got very proactive and said they were going to raise money and assist in the process there. It ended up in Grand Falls-Windsor, and it is great to see other areas in the Province having access.

Because the people I have spoken with who are using these services in Central Newfoundland - I spoke with people on the Northern Peninsula. One elderly gentleman had to come to St. John's and relocate, move away, the first time ever he had to be away from home, an elderly man, and live in St. John's in a basement apartment. I spoke with another gentleman up there who had relatives in Stephenville and he either had to go to Stephenville and commute to Corner Brook or come into St. John's. He ended up relocating here. It is traumatic on the family. It is very difficult when people have to go for several hours a day at hospitals three times a week to be able to stay alive because of kidney failure.

I am advocating, as I said here to the minister before, that we have to look at strategic locations around the Province where we can station dialysis. It is not a highly expensive procedure at all. We are talking about $700,000 in total. A lot of dialysis today is done at home but still a certain number of people need and require the services of going in to a hospital and having the renal dialysis carried out.

With the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation it would not be uncommon for that region to have something even in Clarenville. We are not saying on the Burin Peninsula and in Bonavista, but at least have it in Clarenville to where somebody can drive. From the most remote points, at least, it is an hour and a half. Most areas can reach it there within an hour. The bulk of them can reach it within an hour's drive. At least the services provided there will enable people on the Bonavista Peninsula, even the Burin Peninsula, to go into Clarenville. It is a lot easier than having to relocate and come to St. John's. Lives are disrupted, families are being broken down. We have people, the only wage earner in the family, have their income taken away because they are spending time, three days a week, away. They had to give up their job and are unable to work in many instances, and it is having a devastating effect on the family.

In these modern times it is not too much to expect to be able to provide services in certain locations in the Province. We do not expect every hospital to be able to provide those services - it would not be practical - but where there are sufficient numbers to be able to warrant those services - and I understand there are sufficient numbers in regions of this Province that do not have ready access to this service - people should to be able to get it.

I ask the minister to take a look at that, to listen to the needs of these people, and to provide services that can serve these people, allowing them to stay in the comfort of their own homes around their families.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, first of all, motions 4 and 5, if I can call both of them together.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act,” carried. (Bill 44)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act,” carried. (Bill 42.

On motion, Bills 42 and 44 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 8, Bill 27, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act.”

I believe the debate was adjourned by my hon. colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I see he is not yet on his feet but I imagine he will be up shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. friend, colleague and House Leader is absolutely right, I was not on my feet but I am here now. My time had just about expired Friday when I was speaking to the issue of health care in the Province generally. The point of view I was expressing at that time was simply this, to not so much put the record straight, but to put on the record some of the good things, some of the positive aspects, and some of the progressive and helpful things that are happening in the health care system.

As I said to the Speaker when I rose to speak on the debate on Friday, I would be the last to allege that the health care system in the Province is perfect. As a matter of fact, no system that delivers public services, or no system generally in government or in the private sector, can be alleged to be perfect in any circumstance. Certainly if systems could be perfect by now, computer systems in the country would be perfect in light of the enormous amount of afford that has gone into them to avoid Y2K problems and that sort of thing.

I would simply say in concluding my part of the debate on the health care system on this particular bill that it is incumbent on all of us to be fair, factual and not only appear to be, but be, honest with respect to our assessment of the health care system. I do not believe that the people who administer health care in this Province, the CEOs of the board, the boards themselves, or even the Minister of Health, if I might say so, are terribly insensitive to criticism that is going to be helpful, and that is above all accurate as these points are brought forward. I think it is also incumbent upon the hon. House Leader on the other side of the House, the hon. Member for Ferryland, and for others who speak to the health care issue in the Province to make sure that they are both factual and that they are in context in terms of the suggestions they make and the allegations they put forward.

 

The fact of the matter is that over the last three years, as I understand it, from the answers that have been given by my colleague the Minister of Health, we have put into the health care system well in excess of $100 million of new money over the last three years. That is net, as I understand it, of money that has gone to that department as a result of transferred responsibilities from the older Department of Social Services. If there is any one province that can take pride in what we have done in the context of reduced transfer payments from Ottawa, I believe it is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, I would also point out that during the three years from 1994 to 1997 when the federal government was reducing the CHST transfers by $6 million or $7 million at the end of the day to the provinces for health care, when the federal government was reducing funding coming into the Province, at no point and in no year was funding ever reduced year over year by this government for the purposes of health care. As a matter of fact, even in the worst of times, in the leanest of years, and in the period when federal transfers were being cut, even in those mean and lean years, so to speak, this government and the predecessor government from 1994 to 1997 continued to increase funding for the health care system.

I would only ask that the members on the other side of the House be not only diligent in executing their responsibilities as being an objective critic where it is appropriate, but I would also ask the members on the opposite side of the House to be factual and fair in their assessment of what is happening, what has happened and what will continue to happen no doubt in the health care system of this Province as we continue to move forward on the able, and under the capable, and under the professional, direction of the Minister of Health who has been carrying that tremendously heavy load over the past three years.

I'm sure the hon. Member for Ferryland will understand that it is not a fun game every day to be faced with having to answer questions with respect to specific health care interactions in the Province. The fact of the matter is, I believe, that there are in excess of 15,000 people every single day who visit a doctor or who have an interaction with a doctor in the health care system in this Province for some reason or other. That, on top of the myriad of calls that are handled under the community health boards, plus the interactions that take place in hospitals, adds up to a lot of daily interactions with the system. While it may not be a perfect system, it is a good system that is getting better and will be sustained only to the extent that we have a willingness to continue to see that we have in this country a single tier publicly funded health care system that I believe will be to the benefit to all of us. To go in another direction, I believe, would be to go in a direction that, at the end of the day, might be to the disadvantage of all of us in terms of availability of service and access to the system.

These will be the concluding comments that I would have at this point.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make some remarks about the health care.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Against the health care, yes. They will be factual. I will not be fearmongering unless you are the patient involved. Then, I say, maybe a great deal of fear would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MS S. OSBORNE: Then I would suggest that maybe if you were one of the patients involved, one of the people whom I will refer to today, you would have fear.

The first person that I will speak about is a person who is presently a patient in the Health Sciences Centre. On Wednesday of this week, he started to fast at 6:30 p.m. for a procedure that he was to have the next day. I guess, up against some of the patients that are in the hospital, this will appear relatively minor, but it speaks to the wait list and how there is a backup. This person started to fast at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday. His procedure was to have been Thursday. Thursday at 4:00 p.m., after him fasting since 6:30 p.m. the day before, they said: I am sorry, Sir, but your procedure is cancelled for today; there is too big a backup downstairs.

Being a fairly pleasant man, he said: That is okay, my dear, but do you think I could have a cup of tea and some toast? I am starving. I have been fasting since 6:30 p.m. yesterday. I am sorry, Sir. We do not have the provisions here on the floor to accommodate that; you will have to wait until supper comes up at 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m.

Where that may have only been a half an hour or an hour wait, it may sound insignificant, but when you are sick, diabetic, and have several other things wrong with you, and you have been starving all day, waiting for a procedure, then an extra hour is a long, long time.

I will speak about the mom who lives in my district who has a developmentally delayed daughter. When the daughter has a temper tantrum or an emotional outburst, which is characteristic of her developmental delay, and the mom wants some help for that child, she is told that, when the child was seventeen, she had to go to the Remand Centre. Our health care system could not provide for her daughter. So, she was sent to the Remand Centre and stripped and searched and handcuffed because a psychiatric unit in one of our hospitals could not accommodate her.

I will speak about another person in this city who was taking care of a gentlemen who was developmentally delayed. About 10:00 p.m. in the evening, he started to become very anxious and very upset, and the person knew that she could not alter or change his medication. This person is a Waterford patient, so the care giver called the Waterford Hospital and said: I am having this problem with this patient of yours. What should I do?

The response was: We can't accommodate him here at the hospital - which is part of the health care - you will have to call the police and have him detained in the lockup.

That is true. Now, I don't know if it is fearmongering or if a person who is developmentally delayed would actually feel fear when they are sick and something is wrong with them and they are detained in the lockup with people who have been charged with a criminal offence. If that is fearmongering, I am guilty, but I will not stop fearmongering until the most disadvantaged in our society are recognized by this government.

I will speak about another patient, a woman who is eighty-five years of age. She had raised five children practically on her own because, in the hard times, her husband was a traveling salesman, and transportation then was not what it is today. Many times her husband was away for a month at a time, leaving her with a coal stove and five children to raise and educate. Unfortunately that person, when she became eighty years of age, got dementia, and I visited that person every day while she was a patient in one of the nursing homes. That person was my mother.

One day, I went to visit my mother and she could not verbalize properly to me, but her physical movements told me that she was very uncomfortable. I checked what was under my mother's head, for a pillow. It was a hard blanket shoved into a pillowcase. I went to the nursing station and said, my mother is uncomfortable. She said: I am sorry, Mrs. Osborne, we do not have any pillows on the floor. As a matter of fact, I don't know -

MR. SULLIVAN: I have seen it all over the hospitals (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Exactly. Unfortunately, my mother could not verbalize that she wanted one. Is that fearmongering? This is factual. This is what is happening in our health care system.

When we stand up on this side of the House and try to make -

AN HON. MEMBER: My mother died of cancer thirteen years ago, and I had to do the same kind of thing.

MS S. OSBORNE: Do you want the floor?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I don't; because (inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay. If you want it, you ask for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't have to ask for it.

MS S. OSBORNE: If you want the floor, Sir, stand and I will sit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: I am talking about something that is very serious. I am talking about this government being accountable. When this Opposition tries to make this government accountable, we are accused of fearmongering.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: You know no fear until you see your mother, eighty-five years of age, laying in the bed without a pillow because the health care system could not provide the necessary supplies for a woman who has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). What does that say?

MS S. OSBORNE: I do not know what it has to say, but do not try to put me off on what I am saying. There are people in this system who are suffering, and this Opposition will stand as long as it is happening and we will make this government accountable. You can accuse us of fearmongering. You can try to slant it how you like. It is factual. These people are out there.

The Member for Terra Nova referred to people having to wait, and wait a little while when they are not in intensive care. I know of a patient who was not in intensive care but the patient was very sick and had an IV hooked up. The patient was astute enough to know that there was a long air embolus going through the IV tube, and pushed the buzzer, and pushed it and pushed it. When the air embolus got down to where it was about to go into the person, they had to disconnect their own IV.

That has nothing to do with the staff. That has to do with lack of staff. That is why things like that are happening, and I will never put down the doctors or the nurses, or accuse them of arrogance or accuse them of not responding. I just say that there are not enough of them.

The hon. Member for Terra Nova referred to getting federal government transfer payments reinstated. Get the federal government... It seems to me, Sir, that maybe the hon. member could speak to his boss, because I do believe he was at the Cabinet table when those transfer payments to this Province were cut. So maybe we can talk to him.

The hon. Member for Terra Nova also said that he has not heard members of this side asking for the federal government to instate them. In the thirty months that I have been here, I have heard it; and in the thirty months that I have been here, personally, I have written the federal Minister of Health and described the situation that is happening in some instances in our Province, and asked the federal government to have more money put into this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: No, Sir, as long as there are people out in our Province who are in situations as I have just described, I will probably be accused of fearmongering but I will stand as often as I have to and fight on behalf of those people.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minster of Health and Community Services, I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act”, read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 27)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 10, “An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act”. ( Bill 29)

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act”. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to know that I have at least one enthusiastic supporter on this side of the House at this moment, it being the Member for Bellevue, as I rise to speak to this bill that is before the House for amendment.

This is a fairly routine amendment to Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act. Simply put, it has the effect of delegating the authority for approval of the usage of the Province's Coat of Arms from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, meaning in effect the Cabinet, to the level of authorization at the minister's level.

The reason why this bill is here is simply this: We do on occasion - not on a lot of occasions but we do on some occasions - get requests, extraordinary to government's wishes, to use the Coat of Arms of the Province for purposes outside of the conduct of government business. The Coat of Arms can now be used, of course, by government; it can be used by agencies of government; it can be used by Members of the House of Assembly, generally speaking, for purposes of conducting the ongoing affairs of the Province. There are, on certain occasions, requests from groups such as educational institutions, publishers of educational material and that type of thing, even from people who want to use the Coat of Arms to use it on a souvenir and that type of material, for permission to use the Coat of Arms and reproduce it for application to their products. It is not a permitted use at the moment of the Coat of Arms and so these requests come to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs under the Provincial Affairs part of the portfolio of that department and they ask for permission to use the Coat of Arms in a particular manner for a particular purpose. At the moment, that request has to go all the way to the Cabinet table for authorization or refusal. This bill simply reassigns that level of authorization to the minister as opposed to the level of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

The Coat of Arms is a very important symbol, if you like, of the Government of the Province. As a matter of fact, if we were to look over the Speaker's head, over the Speaker's Chair now, we would see clearly our Coat of Arms and we would see what it looks like, and would all agree that it is a readily recognizable identification symbol with the Government of the Province. Regardless of what political party forms the government, it represents the Government of the Province of the day

While it is not the intent of government to unduly restrict the use of the Coat of Arms, it is certainly the responsibility and the intention of government to ensure that the Coat of Arms of this Province is used in an appropriate fashion, in a dignified manner, used only for a legitimate purpose that is extraneous to a usage that would bring disrepute or cause damage to the image of the Crown.

While we value the Coat of Arms, while we are intent on protecting it in terms of its usage, while we have every intention of ensuring that the Coat of Arms appears only where it is appropriate and where it can do credit to the Province and to the Province's image and reputation, it is not the intent of government to refuse appropriate usage when it comes forward. Simply put, as opposed to it being a matter that should arrive at the Cabinet table for a formal decision as to whether or not it should be used by a specific group in a specific circumstance, it simply now puts that level of authorization at the desk of the minister of the day.

Mr. Speaker, that is, simply put, what this amendment is all about. I would move the amendment as put forward.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act. Indeed, the minister did make a few comments that certainly I agree with. It is an important symbol, the Coat of Arms, for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is indeed above your head in this House of Assembly. The words mean, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God,” I say to the Minister of Health.

The minister said that this is a routine amendment. In a certain respect it could be considered a routine amendment. It does, of course, have the affect of delegating the authority from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to the minister. I say to the minister that he was not quite clear when he stood with respect to that point. He said that he referred to Cabinet, but in actual fact it delegates the authority from the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to the minister to allow people, companies, individuals and what have you to use the Coat of Arms on any product that they may wish to use it on.

The minister states that this symbol, the Coat of Arms, is used by different government agencies, and we all know that to be the case. Member of the House of Assembly oftentimes use it on their letterheads, their various business cards or what have you. They utilize it very often. I do have a concern, though, in just allowing it to go to the minister for his discretion alone. That in itself can create problems down the road depending on who may want to use this Coat of Arms on any given product, any letterhead, or what have you, or what businesses or individuals may want to use it. At the present time, it is not a permitted use for various companies and individuals in the Province without having to go to the Lieutenant- Governor in Council. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is basically Cabinet, I would say to the members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Of course, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will - I say the Member for Bellevue is finally listening and learning something in this House of Assembly after nine or ten years. How long are you here?

MR. BARRETT: Ten years and seven months.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ten years and seven months, and he has finally learned something, Mr. Speaker. He learned it from me.

What would be wrong with leaving it as it is, and letting Cabinet be a second sober thought on permission for various groups, individuals or companies to use this? Now, if a individual or company comes in - and once this piece of legislation goes through the House of Assembly, what can happen is that the minister will have the discretion to say to any given company if they will have permission to use this. That would lead me to this question: What guidelines or criteria may be put in place to allow the minister to make that decision?

I would not want to question the present minister's integrity or anything like that, but we all know that there are politicians here, and we have certain leniencies oftentimes, especially government members, that when certain businesses apply for funds or use of whatever the government may have to offer, if we have a situation where we have two companies that are in competition for a given product, and one company wants to use the Coat of Arms on that product, or both wants to use them, will there be any criteria put in place that will then require the minister to allow both companies? The minister just held up a sheet saying that he does have criteria in place, which is good to hear, and I am glad to hear that he does have criteria in place to allow that to happen.

How often has permission been requested in the past, I say to the minister?

 

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not very often, he says. If that is the case, what is the necessity to allow this piece of legislation to go through? If it is not happening very often, then that begs another question: Why are we now making this amendment to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, to allow the minister to have this discretion?

Somebody with a cynical or devious mind would ask that question right away. They would say: Maybe there is something here we do not know about. For example, last year when the Minister of Work, Services and Transportation had put out a tender for $500,000 to build a new Coat of Arms in front of the Confederation Building, by asking questions in the House of Assembly it was cancelled. Five hundred thousand dollars was going to be spent on the construction of a new Coat of Arms in the front of the Confederation Building. They backed off on that last year.

MR. TULK: It is being done now.

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go. The Government House Leader says that it is being done now. I'm led to believe, and I take the minister at his word, that it is being done with no government funds in front of the Confederation Building. I hope that to be the case. If there was government money going into it, I would have to say it could be better spent. I said it last year in this House of Assembly, that that amount of money, $500,000 - and we had an example here today of questions being asked with respect to health care again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they have permission to use the Coat of Arms?

 

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go. I don't know. I imagine the government has permission to build a Coat of Arms. I would think that to be the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government is not building it. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is a good point. The government is not building it. They are building it for the government, I say to the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they haven't got permission, they cannot put it out there.

MR. J. BYRNE: They would have to have permission, I would say.

I will ask the minister also, because he just made a comment to my questions early, this.

MR. EFFORD: What minister?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the minister who is sponsoring Bill 29, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. He said that permission to use this Coat of Arms does not happen that often, I say to the minister. Is there anyone now in particular seeking permission to use the Coat of Arms, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and if so, who? Would the minister like to elaborate on that in his concluding words? Would he want to say who or what businesses out there or what individuals, or what agencies, or what groups are interested in using the Coat of Arms, and for what purpose?

A concern that I have, of course, is this. As the minister said in his opening remarks, it is a very important symbol of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I agree. The Coat of Arms of any province or country would be a very important symbol. Are there any individuals out there now looking to put this on a retail product, I ask the minister? What groups, what businesses are looking, if there are any looking, to put this on their products? Again, is there a process in place to ensure fairness, so one company is not getting the benefit over another company? He has already addressed that. I would be curious to see the criteria or the specs that would be used to permit that.

Another question, Mr. Speaker, is: How often has anyone been prosecuted for the misuse of the Coat of Arms in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Has there been anyone ever prosecuted for the misuse of the using of the Coat of Arms, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs? I have to go back also to the fact that the minister says that the fact that it is not that often it is requested to be utilized. If that is the case - the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation may be interested in this too - why are we now trying to put this through the House of Assembly if it is very seldom that there is a request? Is it that big a burden on the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to say aye or nay to the use of the Coat of Arms?

To me, there is something that could be going on behind the scenes that we do not know about. You know, Mr. Speaker? There may be groups wanting to utilize this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) behind the scenes you do not know about.

MR. J. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker, we are having a minister of the Cabinet of this Province agreeing in this House of Assembly that there is lots going on behind the scenes that we do not know about on this side of the House of Assembly. That is why we have Question Period, to ask questions in this House of Assembly, but we are not allowed to ask questions, and if we ask questions we are being irresponsible or we are fearmongering or what have you. That is what is going on, and the minister finally admitted it.

That is the reason why when the Minister of Mines and Energy gets up to answer a question he is so very careful, lately, very lately now, Mr. Speaker, of the words that he is using to answer the questions. That has only happened recently, I would say, because when we were asking questions in the House of Assembly last spring with respect to the nurses' strike the minister was not so careful over the words he used, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if there is a lot more that can be said with respect to this piece of legislation. I do not know if anybody else on this side of the House is planning on speaking to this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader that he is over there in the chair next to the Premier, and he was in Opposition for many years I understand. He was in the back benches of government for many years. He knows the role of the Opposition, or at least he should know it. He should know the role of the Opposition in this House of Assembly, where democracy is held most high. With most of us, I would say, but not all.

Again, this is a bit of a side issue, just with respect to the Coat of Arms out in front that is being constructed now, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Would he like to elaborate on the final design of that? Because when I am looking at it driving up the parkway, all you see is a big concrete wall. Up on the fifth floor of Confederation Building, looking down on it, you can certainly see the design and what is happening there. Basically for people to see it, you either have to get up in a helicopter or come up on the fifth or sixth floor of Confederation Building and look down upon it.

I was surprised when I saw that happening because before when people drove by there was no problem to see the Coat of Arms in front of the Confederation Building. I am just curious as to the finished product in front of that big wall that goes out around. What is going to be there on that, I say to the minister? He may know. I would imagine he does know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your picture (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It would be a...

MR. TULK: Don't say it is better looking than the Coat of Arms. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I was going to say, better my picture than yours, I say to the Government House Leader. No doubt there, okay? Maybe you should have pictures of all the members out there.

MR. TULK: Jack, there is nothing worse (inaudible) in the world than (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, some would agree with what the Government House Leader just said. There would be nothing worse than having my picture, but there are some that would disagree wholeheartedly, I say to the Government House Leader. Some would disagree wholeheartedly. The Member for Bay of Islands disagrees. He agrees with me. He disagrees with the Government House Leader.

In the meantime I think I am going to -

MR. TULK: They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, all right.

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say to the Government House Leader, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder the person that loves you or feels that you are beautiful must be some beholder.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is not what I thought he said.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down. Are there members on this side or anybody on that side who would like to say a few words?

Just in conclusion, I am going to sit down and say that the question I have to ask before I sit down is: If the use of the Coat of arms is being used or requested very few times in the past, why the necessity to amend the legislation in the first place?

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand just to say a few brief words on Bill 29 and to commend the minister in the way he introduced the bill. Normally in this House - and I have said this many times - you get a bill, some of them like Bill 23, a fairly thick bill, and the minister stands and in one minute they are sitting down.

Today we have a bill that does not mean a lot. It is only housekeeping. It is no big event, but the minister stood for about fifteen minutes to introduce the bill. Obviously he felt very comfortable. He explained the bill and what it was all about, what it meant and the reason why it was introduced into the Chamber. That is the way it should be, I say to the minister. When the minister introduces a bill in this House, when he or she is finished, when they sit down, then we should know fully what the bill contains, the reason for the change and the reason why it is put before the House to debate and make a decision on.

This particular bill is not earthshattering or anything. It is An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act. The Coat of Arms is something that I wear. Every coat that I have I wear a Coat of Arms on it. It is something that I have been very proud to wear, especially since I came into this Assembly. If somebody sees me someday with a coat on and I do not have the Coat of Arms in the lapel, then I am after giving it to somebody before I could get to another one. Because I wear the Coat of Arms religiously on my coat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) somebody else's coat on (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Or I may have somebody else's coat on. It is a popular pin that a lot of people come looking for and a lot of people like to have. They associate it with Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our symbol. It is a symbol of this House here, Mr. Speaker.

Sometimes I wonder if we do not become too protective of some of those things. I know we cannot let everybody go out and just paste the Coat of Arms on everything, but I have some concerns when I hear minister after minister getting up in the House saying that you have to come to the minister now to haul out a load of wood. You have to go to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I say to members opposite. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now expects all the depots across Newfoundland and Labrador that dispense gasoline to call him and give him the readout of a particular tank every Monday morning. That is what the minister requires. Now the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs wants people to call him if they want to use the Coat of Arms. It makes me wonder what the ministers do.

If you go in and cut your wood before a certain time you have to have it out within two months or do you know what you have to do? You have to call the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and ask him if it is all right for you to bring home your load of wood. You have to call the minister and find out if you can bring home your load of wood because it is two months since you cut it. You have to have it in and out from the time you got your permit. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is saying: When I come in Monday mornings, I want everybody out in Newfoundland and Labrador that has a fuel tank that dispenses gasoline to call me and tell me how much fuel is in the tank. The minister should not have to be concerned about those issues. Surely to goodness he has staff there that he trusts.

Now we have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. If somebody outside this Legislature wants to use this Coat of Arms then they -

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you serious?

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, I'm serious. This is the crowd you are tangled up with, I say to the member.

Mr. Speaker, he has to call the minister and find out if they can use the Coat of Arms. That is not what the minister should be involved in. That is not why we are paying ministers good salaries in this House. That is not the reason why the Premier goes out and makes appointments for people to sit in Cabinet and to give direction of what Newfoundland and Labrador is all about.

While it might be an important piece of legislation and it might be some slight to this Chamber or to government if we use the Coat of Arms, then maybe some of the minister's staff can deal with that. I do not think the minister should deal with it any more than it is such a trivial issue to be brought to a Cabinet table or before the Assembly. It is something that should be dealt with at a much lower level than taking it to the minister. If the minister has no more to do than listen to those kind of things, then it makes you wonder if we are getting our money's worth and if they are fulfilling their obligations that they were elected here to do.

That is about all that I have to say on the Coat of Arms. I understand there are a few more people here that want to say a few words. Maybe, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, when he stands up to close debate he might want to tell us the difference of why we can use the Coat of Arms but we can't use the government emblem? Is the government emblem only for departments of government or is it only in places that all Members of the House of Assembly can use? I'm confused about that. I'm confused why we cannot use the government emblem on stationery. If I decide that I am going to put out a card or that I am going to put forward something, and I am going to do it in the name of the House of Assembly, and if I choose to use the emblem of government rather than the Coat of Arms - the emblem is just a centrepiece of the Coat of Arms - then why can't I use that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: If that is the reason, then I accept that. Maybe the minister can address that and explain it when he gets up to close debate on the difference of Members of this House using the Coat of Arms and using the emblem if it is only government departments.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: What?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: You are not the one in charge, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and you never will. He has reached his peak as far as he will go in this Assembly.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I pass the debate on to any other member that would like to speak and talk about this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I am certainly pleased to rise today and speak in favour of this particular bill. I certainly fully support it, as all my colleagues do on this side of the House. I find it difficult to believe that members opposite would not support this particular bill. We are talking about the Newfoundland Coat of Arms here. It belongs to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Like any other treasure, I think this government has a responsibility to protect it.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this bill is doing. The hon. the Member for Bonavista South says there is no need for the minister to have the responsibility of saying who can or who cannot use this particular Coat of Arms; but, if he doesn't do it then who is going to do it? Are we going to delegate the authority of this government to the Opposition? I don't think so. Not yet. We are not willing to do that yet.

We all know that anything in society, whether it be the Newfoundland Coat of Arms or whether it be any other symbol, it has always been protected. It is only fitting and proper that this government protect our very own Newfoundland Coat of Arms. I believe that it is incumbent on every member in this House to ensure that it is protected.

I am really amazed at the Member for Bonavista South. He is always so level-headed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Always?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - except when it comes to protecting. When it comes to protecting things in this Province, he doesn't seem to be consistent. He wants the fish protected, he wants the land protected, but he doesn't want the Coat of Arms protected. I don't understand that.

I don't know of any symbol that is worth anything that is not protected. I believe that this government is not willing to allow this Coat of Arms to be used by anybody, for whatever purpose. I think the whole purpose of this bill is to ensure that, for whatever purpose it is used, it has the approval of the minister.

I believe that the members opposite will see the light and they will fully support this bill. In fact, I suspect there will be a unanimous vote on it. In fact, this is the right thing to do. I am wondering why we are even debating it, why we would have a debate in this House on whether or not we should protect the Newfoundland Coat of Arms.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a major riff over here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, there is.

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite talks about the riff that is over there. It has nothing to do with the bill, nothing whatsoever.

It was only the other day he was wondering -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: I will take back that statement, Mr. Speaker, about the member being level-headed.

I think the bill is very clear. It says, “(4) A person, other than the government of the province, shall not assume or use

(a) the Coat of Arms;

(b) a design in imitation of the Coat of Arms; or

(c) a design which resembles the Coat of Arms,

unless that person has the express permission of the minister.”

Mr. Speaker, that is very clear. We, on this side of the House, want to protect the use of the Coat of Arms exclusively; that no other individual can use that Coat of Arms for whatever purpose unless they have permission of the minister.

That is very clear. In fact, it is a very short bill. I don't think it needs any interpretation, but I will be surprised if everybody, on both sides of the House, does not stand and support this particular bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would remind hon. gentlemen to be ready to rise and be recognized. The Chair is not prepared to be waiting for you to get to your seat.

The Chair will recognize the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley again.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, on this side, had scheduled a number of speakers and we found that, when the time arose, the member was temporarily not available to speak to the House.

We, on this side, believe in the integrity of the Coat of Arms. It is part of Newfoundland's history, part of our heritage, and we believe that it should be preserved. We, on this side, will be voting for this particular bill. It is a rather, shall we say, minor bill, but some members on this side wanted to have an opportunity to have a few words. As a consequence, the Member for Bonavista South got up and gave a rather eloquent speech -

AN HON. MEMBER: Inspiring.

MR. H. HODDER: - inspiring speech, as he always does, and told us his concerns and got into a lot of other issues pertaining to the integrity of the Coat of Arms. As a consequence of his inspiring speech, I notice that the Member for Topsail felt compelled to get up and share with us his commentaries on why this bill should be passed.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side would want to support the legislation, and I do understand that the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's is supposed to address this bill as well, and if he doesn't get back to his seat, he is going to miss the opportunity to speak.

We want to say to the government that anything that they can do to promote Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote us as a place of destiny for tourism, in the uses to which we put our Coat of Arms, it is a symbol of our Province, it is a symbol of our integrity. We on this side will support the bill, but first of all I do believe there are a couple of more speakers. Particularly the Member for Placentia & St.. Mary's will want to join in the debate, because he has some very important things he wants to share with all members of the House, and indeed all people across the Province.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member was not standing when I recognized the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: I will give leave to the Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Okay, sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is the snipe up in the back saying now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, protection from the snipe up in the back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, I would say I could give you some advice on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Wouldn't take it.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Tourism gets very excited when it comes to talking about money, and how free he is with his - but I would just like to speak today on Bill 29.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fellow up in Ontario taking your money (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Tourism - no, I will not. I will leave it alone.

I would just like to stand today and say a few words on Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act. I listened to the Member for Topsail, on his legal opinion on this issue, when he stood up to say a few words. The amendment to the act is nothing earth-shattering but it is something that concerns us all, for the simple reason that the Coat of Arms is something that represents Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is here in the Province or anywhere across Canada, or anywhere in the world for that matter. The Coat of Arms represents Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Coat of Arms, which you see just above the Speaker's Chair, is something that symbolizes Newfoundland and Labrador to the whole world. It is important that we protect it. It is important that we have some type of regulatory regime in place, that the Coat of Arms is not used anywhere at all wherever any individual wants to use the Coat of Arms in the Province. It is something that certainly imitates the Province, and it is something that represents the Province, whether it is on a piece of paper, whether it is on a jacket - whether the Coat of Arms is on a jacket that the Minister of Tourism may give to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Wherever the Coat of Arms is used, it is something that resembles Newfoundland and Labrador. It resembles the people of the Province, and it is important that it is protected.

Right now, from what I understand, the authority to grant permission for the use of the Coat of Arms basically has to go back to Cabinet. It is kind of cumbersome, and I guess the purpose we find ourselves here today is to make that process less cumbersome. This is what this amendment will bring forward, I hope, in that we make the process less cumbersome in relation to the use of the Coat of Arms in the Province. I guess, in a nutshell, that is what this amendment is all about. It is important, as I say, that we have a less cumbersome act, because the Coat of Arms is something that a lot of volunteer organizations use in relation to sometimes when they are doing some fundraising for different charities throughout the Province, from what I can understand, and getting permission to use the Coat of Arms on these products that they are trying to have for fundraisers. There are a whole gamut of things that they would have to go through in order to get permission to use that.

With this amendment today, we hope to see that the use of the Coat of Arms will be more or less straightforward and it will be a decision, from what I can understand, of the minister in relation to the use of the Coat of Arms.

The amendment is brought forward and it is something that hopefully the House will proceed with moving forward in relation to the fact that people throughout the Province, whether young people or anybody who wants to use the Coat of Arms for any project they may have, that it is less cumbersome and that they can have the Coat of Arms and the use of the Coat of Arms without any problem.

I say, in all honesty, it may sound to some people that it is not something that is that important. It may sound to members of the House that it is not important. It may sound that way to people outside of the House, that it is not that important about the Coat of Arms, but I think it is a very important thing that we protect it. It is an important aspect of the Newfoundland people, it is something that needs to be protected, and it certainly needs to be regulated in that it is not flamboyantly used wherever an individual, organization, group or company would like to use it. I think that is why we have protection through legislation with the Coat of Arms. It is something that I certainly support and do not have any problem in supporting this amendment to the act. It is something that I can certainly live with, because I think it brings protection to the use of the Coat of Arms, and I think it is very important that we have that.

I would just like to say that I am interested in the debate flowing back and forth between both sides of the House. While some members stand on their feet and say they have concerns with the act, or the amendment to the act, I certainly do not. I think it is something - that we have protection for the Coat of Arms. I don't think anybody should be allow to just use the Coat of Arms at their own whim. Just say, for example, that somebody went out and produced a coat, a jacket, and for some reason or other stuck the Coat of Arms on the jacket and presented the jacket to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Maybe he would get upset about the use of the Coat of Arms on the jacket. I don't know. The man was pretty upset because we had a jacket made in Indonesia. If the Coat of Arms had to be on that jacket that was made in Indonesia, the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi might be in a furor over it; I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: A ‘furey' over it.

MR. MANNING: I am just saying that he could be in a furor over the ‘furey' jacket.

I say to the Minister of Tourism, if he had to be thinking straight and have his mind on the game, he would have given his critic the jacket. Instead of taking things personally, he would have come across the floor, and: Here is a present for you. Go and enjoy the Viking Millennium.

I guess I am not on the ‘chuck wagon express' so I didn't get a jacket. We will get back to that later on. That is another issue that will keep for another day. I am going to get back to the act, but I keep getting thrown off by the fact that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi got a present of a jacket and nobody else did. I can't understand that. What happens then is that -

AN HON. MEMBER: I got one, too.

MR. MANNING: Oh, you got one too? I didn't know you got one too. So I got left out altogether. All my buddies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: So I am the only person on this side of the House who didn't get a jacket that was make in Indonesia, I say to the Minister of Tourism?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Present it, I say to the Minister of Tourism. Present it. I will get back to that.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to put the jacket back in the closet and get back now to the Coat of Arms. There are a few members who could still be in the closet with the jacket, so I will leave that there.

I would like to get back to the Coat of Arms Act. I look over at the Minister of Fisheries. I am not going to talk about the leadership campaign today, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I did a poll this weekend and I will update you on Wednesday on the poll - Thursday. I will update you on Thursday on the poll. I will not be in the House on Wednesday, due a function in my district, but I will update the House on the latest leadership poll, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

I have to be honest. Up until the latest poll that I did, which was out in my district... Around the first week of November, I conducted a poll on the leadership. I have to say - and I don't apologize to the Minister of Mines and Energy when I say this, but - the Minister of Fisheries is far ahead in rural Newfoundland. So, you have a lot of work to do out in rural Newfoundland. You are doing well in the urban areas, but the Minister of Fisheries is miles ahead in rural Newfoundland when it comes to the leadership, Mr. Speaker. Now I know -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are nautical miles.

MR. MANNING: I am talking nautical miles. The Minister of Fisheries is miles ahead and he is well-suited - I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy that I know for a fact that the Minister of Fisheries is well-suited to finance the campaign. I know that for sure. He is well-suited to finance the campaign.

I remember back many years ago when I was only a wee little fellow out on the Cape Shore when the Minister of Fisheries would be trucking along -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, no I say to the minister. I have come a long ways.

The Minister of Fisheries would come trucking along, selling his wares door to door. I must say, the Minister of Fisheries, who was a wholesaler at the time, did a fair amount of business with some of my family members who were in business also. I have to say that he gave a few good deals on used appliances. They were painted up to look new, but I got a few good deals off him.

I can remember back a few years ago when I came across a bill at home - I mentioned this in the House one time before - it is interesting, where the Minister of Fisheries had made out a bill to my aunt in Branch, St. Mary's Bay. On the top of the bill he had down: ten pencils, ten rubbers, ten exercises.

I am just wondering. He was a very good, straightforward man when he was out doing business in the area, and I am sure he will make a great leader of the Liberal Party when the day comes. The Minister of Mines and Energy will have to settle for deputy.

I just want to get back to Bill 29, if I could. The members opposite keep throwing me off on this important bill. I want to stand here today and say a few words because I think it is important that we protect the Coat of Arms, not only for ourselves but indeed for all the people of the Province. It is important that the Coat of Arms be respected. We, on this side of the House, certainly respect the Coat of Arms. It is a symbol of Newfoundland and Labrador to the rest of the world. It is something that we are proud of as a Province, it is something that we are proud of as a people, and it is something that needs to be protected. I guess, through this act today, the Coat of Arms is not only protected but the use of the Coat of Arms is enhanced, and certainly the use of the Coat of Arms is not going to be something that anybody can take -

What is wrong with that member? I can never thing of his name.

AN HON. MEMBER: Humber East.

MR. MANNING: The Member for Humber East, the snipe, the sandbagger, the president of the Liberal sandbagger club. He says so much, then he never gets on his feet. I can't understand that. You have an opportunity to stand on your feet and say a few words, I say to the Member for Humber East. Get up and say something. Put it in Hansard so we can have a look and see exactly what you say. I listened to the member - oh, I never thought of that. Where is Friday's Hansard? Hold on now, until I get out Friday's Hansard.

It was interesting, the questions today during Question Period concerning concerns raised in health care in relation to doctors in the Province. I certainly have a concern in my district, down in St. Mary's, and it is an opportunity for me to say a few words on that in relation to trying to get a permanent doctor in St. Mary's. I was surprised, like many other people here, to hear the member put forward the other day... Mr. Lush put forward some unparliamentary, I suppose, in one sense, but it wasn't hitting anybody here within - Is this Friday's? Yes. Find that for me, will you? - the concerns put forward that some of the problems we have in health care in this Province in relation to the arrogance of doctors. It certainly concerned the Member for Cape St. Francis to the point where he had to get on his feet today during Question Period and question it. It is certainly something that concerns me, as a rural Member of the House of Assembly, seeking to have a doctor in the district. The comments went like this: It may stem from a certain arrogance that doctors themselves have established by making you and I wait for appointments.

That is really uncalled for. Here we are discussing the Coat of Arms today, the importance that the Coat of Arms has to the Province, and the importance that the Coat of Arms has to every individual in Newfoundland and Labrador. It represents us, the Coat of Arms. Then we have a Member of the House of Assembly who gets on his feet, who represents a group, an area here in the district, talk about the arrogance that doctors themselves have established by making you and I wait for an appointment.

Mr. Speaker, I would say a lot of the problems with health care in the Province - and the member should listen too, because he had some health concerns back a few years ago. He was lucky he wasn't in Newfoundland when he had his problem. He was in another country where he got some immediate help. He might have been on a three-month waiting list here, I say to the Member for Bellevue. Then you might not be here at all. So, you are lucky I say to the Member for Bellevue. You are lucky that, when you did have your health problem, you were not in Newfoundland at the time, that you were -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the waiting lists, not the doctors, not the nurses.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the waiting lists. He is lucky he was not in the Province at the time; because, if he had to be put on a waiting list in this Province, it might be four or five months after he had his health problem that he would be dealt with. Then, if everything went well, he might not be dealt with for four or five months after that. Then we might not be dealing with him at all, I say to the member, because he might not even be here to deal with.

I say to the Member for Humber East, get up on your feet. If you have something to say, get up on your feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh, I will get some advice from the sandbagger. You knew what you were talking about until you got sandbagged, I say to the Member for Humber East. You didn't know what you were talking about, either, until the boss hauled in your reins. Don't you give advice on knowing what to talk about, I say to the Member for Humber East.

What I am talking about here is something that represents Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the Coat of Arms. I cannot understand why the crowd up in the nosebleed section are all excited. I say, just hold on until I get a chance to say a few words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about something here -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What was that from the Member for Bellevue?

MR. BARRETT: I said you are that far back from the back benches, you can't (inaudible) at all.

MR. MANNING: The only difference, I say to the Member for Bellevue, is that some day I will be in the front but you will still be in the back.

AN HON. MEMBER: In your dreams.

MR. MANNING: Dare to dream, I say to the Member for Humber East.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Humber East, I am willing to sit and stand here on this side of the House and wait my turn. I say, in all honesty, I am willing to wait my turn. Now, I could rush that up a bit. I could get up tomorrow morning and walk over there and I might be a minister in a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. MANNING: Let's take it a step at a time. Help me out here, boys. I was in here in 1993 to 1996. I was in here and the people decided, Mr. Speaker. The people made a decision. The (inaudible) of 1993 to 1996 and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was sitting shoulder to shoulder with me. Then he happened to stop and went into the washroom in Deer Lake or Stephenville - was it Deer Lake or Stephenville? - at the airport and lo and behold, who was in the washroom but the Premier. They had a little chat. Remind (inaudible). They had a little chat, and when they came out of the washroom the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation decided he was going to go over on that side. I said in my own mind then -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's only one Tory.

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, that's only one Tory. I am going to get through him first. Then the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation went over and I said to myself: Now he's a fool. He is going to be up in the nosebleed section now for the next three or four years. He is going to be up where your oxygen mask drops down every now and again so you can breath and we know that you are still up there. I said: He's a fool to do that. Then the next thing I know he is walking into Government House being sworn in as a minister.

I look over at the Member for Bellevue, as an example, who has been a Liberal since the day he came into the world, and he is still up in the nosebleed section. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is enjoying all the finery that comes with the minister's office. Then we look over across the floor and we have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, another good Tory. He ran for this party in 1989. He ran for the nomination for this party in 1989, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Decides -

AN HON. MEMBER: A member of the 500 Club.

MR. MANNING: A member of the 500 Club, Mr. Speaker. He decides that he is going to walk over and check out that side of the scene. He walks over and the next thing we know, he is a minister. Thanks be to God that the premier of the day had sense enough to take him out of the Ministry of Health. Thanks be to God. He put her on the skids. Thanks be to God he took him out of the Ministry of Health, but I'm saying is that he still became a minister in the government. Those are two good Tories.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Julie?

MR. MANNING: Yes, she ran for us too, didn't she? Sure, my God, I can't keep track of them all. How many Tories are over there, Mr. Speaker? Then you have the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, another good Tory who ran for us, ran for the nomination. That's three. Let me have a look around. Oh my gosh, I am almost forgot, the Minister of Environment and Labour. Sure, he was elected as a Tory. He came in here and decided over on this side that things were not too exciting or whatever the case may be. He did not like the way things worked over here so he decided to take the jaunt over to the other side. Where he is today? He is a minister. That is four. If I sit back now and size it up -

MR. MERCER: (Inaudible) Bill Matthews now.

MR. MANNING: Bill Matthews is a good friend of mine, I say to the Member for Humber East. He is a good friend of mine. I'm talking about the Tories that were on this side of the House that now are sitting around the Cabinet table while all you good - supposedly good - solid Liberals on that side are still up in the nosebleed section. That is what I am saying, I say to the Member for Humber East. I can't understand it, so it must be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Here we have the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he was with the other party, the one down here in that section. That is the food service section down here. That is down in that section. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was down with them for a while. Now he is over there in the Cabinet. So what I want to ask here is: What are the credentials or the criteria to get into Cabinet? You have to be a Tory. You have to be an NDP. You have to get involved with this side of the House and then walk over to that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything but a Liberal.

MR. MANNING: You have to be anything but a Liberal to be in Cabinet. If I was sitting up in the top section, if I was sitting back where the Member for Humber East is sitting, I would be asking myself: Am I good enough to get up to the front? Will I be good enough to get into the second row? Even if I could make it to the second row there might some hope. If the Member for Humber East could make it to the second row there might be some hope that he could get to the first row.

The only time the Member for Bellevue gets down to the front row is when the Premier is not around and he comes down just to sit down and take it easy. I say, the Member for Humber East is up in the back. He, the Member for Bellevue, the Member for Topsail, and several other members that are over there must ask yourselves: What is the criteria? What do I have to do in order to be in the minister's office?

The first thing you have to do it that you have to be elected a Tory or you have to run for the Tory party. The Minister of Municipal Affairs knows all about that, I say. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is a good solid Tory. We are pleased on this side of the House to have some good Tory representation at the Cabinet table. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is one of the best Torys in the Province. It is good to have this Tory representation sitting at this table, because therefore we get the solid policies developed on this side of the House brought to the Cabinet table.

The only part that concerns me is how the Ministers of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Environment and Labour, and Works, Services and Transportation, all these good solid Torys, I always wonder how come they are accepted by the Minister of Fisheries. I always wonder why the Minister of Fisheries accepts these people at the table. Because knowing the Minister of Fisheries, knowing the red blood that flows through his veins and the way he gets all excited, knowing that, I always wonder how he accepts them at the table.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I know, he shivers and he shakes, Mr. Speaker. Do you know something? I say to the Minister of Fisheries that when you sit down and size up -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Fisheries is going to give you a (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No. You take my advice, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, just in this one. When the time comes for the leadership race you can depend on them. They will only pretend they are supporting the Minister of Mines, Mr. Speaker. When the time comes they will jump behind you, don't you worry, because they know you are in a leading position. When the Minister of Municipal Affairs was on this side he went over to that side to make sure that his career got enhanced. More power to him, it did. They know that you are in a leading position with the leadership race, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, so when the time comes the good Tory ministers that are on that side of the House will be supporting you.

Now, the good Liberal ministers like the two lads up here in the corner are going to be supporting the Minister of Mines and Energy. I know that without a doubt in my mind, but then, they come together pretty good. I say to the Minister of Tourism, if you want to be in Cabinet there are two things you have to stop doing. Number one is that you stop giving out jackets to the Leader of the NDP. That is the first thing that you have to do.

MR. FUREY: Consider that done.

MR. MANNING: Consider that done. I would say mission accomplished on that one, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fabian, if (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, I guarantee you that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi will not be on with Jim Browne any more talking about coats. I am willing to put the bit of money I have left to that.

Mr. Speaker, that is one thing the Minister of Tourism has to do, he has to stop giving jackets to the Leader of the NDP if he wants to stay in. The second thing he has to do is he is going to have to get on the bandwagon for the Minister of Fisheries. I'm out around rural Newfoundland on weekends. I can see the ball rolling, it is like a snowball. The Minister of Fisheries is a very quiet, unassuming kind of guy, but he get out on the wharfs and down in the small communities of this Province. I was down in a community where the Minister of Fisheries was a couple of years ago and he was like one of these fresh cod fish out of the water. He was going up and down on the wharf, the hands were going like fins on the fish. He was all excited. I can tell you, when he starts the ball rolling - and it is rolling across this Province, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, and he is picking up steam and support. I am telling you that when the time comes for the Minister of Fisheries to drop the ball for the leadership race the Minister of Mines and Energy can pack it in. I say the Minister of Fisheries is out among rural Newfoundlanders and he is going to sandbag the Minister of Mines and Energy.

I would just like to -

MR. FUREY: Give us a minute or two on Gerry Adams now, while you are on that subject. How do you feel about him while you're on the Coat of Arms? Are you for or against that Irish agreement?

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would say that the Coat of Arms is a very important aspect of Newfoundland. It is something that we need to talk about here today. I would say that the amendment to the Coat of Arms Act is something that I am pleased to say a few words on today because I think it is an important act, it is an important amendment. It is something that, as I said earlier, represents all Newfoundland and Labrador and represents all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I say I am very pleased. I do not have any problem with the amendment. I am sure in due course the amendment will pass and that the Coat of Arms will be protected, not only for us here but indeed for all people in the Province for years to come.

With that, I would just like to say that it is great to have the opportunity to stand and speak on such an important issue as the Coat of Arms because it represents each and every one of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was being so entertained and enthralled there by the remarks of the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's that I almost forgot what my real role was in this debate and that was, of course, to get this bill through the House. I can only say to the hon. member that if his predictions in prophesying or forecasting the probable outcome of unofficial future events on this side of the House is no better than his ability to keep his hand on his own wallet, then I really would not put a lot of stock in any predictions that he makes. Because obviously, when a fellow cannot keep his hand on his own credit cards, he is certainly not going to be entrusted much with keeping the books and the treasury of the people of the Province. It is another clear indication why, on February 9, the people of the Province put this crowd on this side of the House and that crowd on that side of the House.

Can you imagine a potential minister of finance over there not being able to hold on to his own wallet and protect his credit cards? What would he do with the books of the people of the Province if he ever had the opportunity to come over? I would suggest he would be older and he will be grayer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) same thing you are doing, cooking them!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I certainly did not want to remind the hon. member, as he is quite well aware of, that the potential for him ever being able to come over here and look at the books is somewhere between slim, nil and non-existent.

The hon. member over there is a young man and I am delighted for him that he is a young man, because I tell you that despite the fact that he has about thirty more years to go to pensionable age, he will yet draw his pension - if he is a Member of the House of Assembly at all - as a Tory back bencher. That is as good as it is going to get for him. So, be comfortable where you are and keep your seat warm as best you can -

MR. MANNING: Whatever morning I go down to Government House I will (inaudible) copy of Hansard (inaudible) November 29, 1999. (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I can tell the hon. member that I will long since have had a long and successful career in politics on this, the government's side, of the House, before you ever get to Government House. The only time you are going to Government House, I would say to the hon. member, is if on the off chance the Lieutenant-Governor invites him down to the party he has every July, the garden party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Outside of garden parties your opportunity of going to Government House, I would say to the hon. member, is slim to nil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the chances of me ever being on that side of the House, in any capacity, is probably as unlikely as having the Government House Leader be over there in some capacity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would say to the hon. member that the fact that there is even a suggestion that there might be a welcome indicates that in their mind there must be some value in the hon. member as an individual, regardless of what side of the House he is on. To that extent I take his suggestion and his offer as a compliment; but I have, with great respect, to say no to him. I would have to decline even any suggestion of an offer.

As I said in the House Friday in the debate on Bill 27, in order for somebody to come from that side of the House to this side of the House, there has to be both an inviter and an invitee. I can tell the hon. member that, in terms of them coming over here, we will not be the inviters and certainly they will not be the invitees. I would suspect that will never happen.

Having said all of that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill on the Coat of Arms. I do want to express appreciation to the hon. members over there, notwithstanding the voluminous diatribe that flowed in the last hour-and-a-half. I nevertheless do respect their right to speak and the level of input to the extent that it improve, has improved or will improve in the future, the circumstance of this Province, we accept it gratefully over here. I have to say that the chances of it improving the circumstance of the Province is about the same as him coming over here; it is negligible to nil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat of Arms Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 29)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 11, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act (No.2)”. (Bill 32)

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act (No 2)”. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in place of the real Minister of Finance, the hon. Paul Dicks, whose name this bill stands in, to introduce this bill for second reading and to lead off the debate. This is probably one of the most significant, one of the most important, and certainly one of the historical pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced in this House in the last fifty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say in the last fifty years, and I say it advisedly; because, as the Minister of Finance pointed out when the tax reductions were announced by him and the Premier just about a month ago, he indicated at that time that, for the first time ever in the history of the Province, this government has been responsible for a variety of tax measures that have the effect of reducing the tax burden on the people of the Province. This bill, Bill 32, deals specifically with the announced reductions in the income tax rates that were announced about three weeks ago which will see, over the next three years, a total of $175 million more remaining in the hands of the people of this Province -

MR. TULK: You know you have an hour on this bill.

MR. MATTHEWS: An hour?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Government House Leader telling me I have an hour on this bill. An hour - with great respect, I have to say to him at the outset - will, in no way, give me time to do justice to singing the praises of either the Minister of Finance or the efforts of this government generally with respect to this very important issue. However, I will get on with the debate and hopefully at the end of the expiration of my time, whether it is an hour or less, it will leave the members on the other side of the House in such unanimity in terms of supporting this bill that they will simply not wish to rise and speak but call the question before even we have a chance to do it over here.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the tax decrease that was announced by the Minister of Finance about two or three weeks ago is indeed one of historical significance. About three years ago, the people of the Province received the first tax break that they had received in a long, long time, when the people of the Province became the beneficiaries of a reduced HST blended tax rate that brought the combined retail sales tax rate and the GST tax rate down from about 19.2 per cent, an effective rate, down to the 15 per cent blended rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen point eight four.

MR. MATTHEWS: From 19.84 per cent to 15 per cent. There was a reduction of 4.84 per cent in the tax rate on goods and services in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill signifies a number of firsts in terms of the economy of this Province. It signifies the first time that we have been able, in fifty years, to see a reduction in income tax rates in the Province. It signifies a significant point of positive growth in the economy of the Province. It signifies, on behalf of the people of the Province, through this government, a confidence in the future of the economy of this Province such that we were able to make this bold move at this time. It is one thing to have a temporary improvement in our circumstance. It is one thing to see an anomaly, if you like, in the way the economy is going, and have a temporary change in that, but what we are seeing in the economy of the Province today is, if not unanimous, certainly substantial general agreement that we have, as a Province, on an economic basis, finally turned the corner.

What we are seeing in the Province today in terms of economic recovery is both real and sustainable and projected well into the future. That is why the Minister of Finance and the Premier were able to go before the microphones about a month ago and say to the people of the Province: Based on our confidence of where we are in the economy cycle, based upon our confidence of where we believe we are going as a Province, based upon our confidence of the management skills that we have brought to the provincial Treasury of this Province, we are now able to say to the people of the Province, it is time for you to benefit from a little break in your taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the other side of the House, the people in the Opposition, and indeed some special interest groups in the Province, tried to play the income tax break as the hon. Leader of the Opposition said: Putting money in one's right-hand pocket and taking money out of ones lefthand pocket.

To that proposition, I would simply say that if somebody is prepared to take a dollar out of my pocket, providing I give them the permission to put four or five dollars in the other pocket, then I would be prepared to go along with that proposition. The reality is that, while the Leader of the Opposition on one hand was saying, “A tax break is what we support”, on the other hand he was trying to make it sound as though we really were not giving the people a tax break at all.

Now, he either has to play it one way or the other. He either has to say: Yes, this is a legitimate tax break. It may not be the $900 million that we would have given the people of the Province. It may not have been at a level that was totally ridiculous and irresponsible to suggest in the beginning, but certainly it is a tax break that is consistent with the ability of the people of the Province to sustain through the economic growth that we are experiencing.

I am not going to spend a lot of time in getting into the implications or the outcomes of this tax break. We know that it will mean $30 million to the people of the Province in year one. We know that it will drive that figure to $175 million over a three-year period. We know that generally the people of the Province are both receptive and grateful for the tax break that this bill gives them. Not only that, we know that the people of the Province are appreciative of our effort to manage the affairs of the Province such that it is now possible to reward them with some measure of tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, the tax relief that is being afforded as a result of this bill will cause and create a significantly higher level of economic activity in the Province. It will cause people to spend some money that otherwise they may have been cautious about spending. It not only gives them some real dollars in the Province but I think, as important as anything, the initiative that has been undertaken here is really - the message in this is the message of confidence that we have in the economy of the Province, and I believe that the response of the people of the Province has been: Yes, we agree with you, government. We also have confidence in the economy of the Province, and we believe that we are headed in the right direction. That is why we believe that the tax break you have announced and given us as people of the Province is the right thing to do at the right time not only in our history but in the economic cycle that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, we will be interested on this side of the House to hear what the members on the other side of the House have to say, given the fact that, to some extent, they have already risen publicly and said a tax break is totally, completely and absolutely consistent with, of all other books, the Blue Book that we put out.

With that level of admission and with that level of support for the tax bill, we can only anticipate that this bill will move through the House not only very smoothly but, once they have had time to debate it, as quickly as is possible.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am pleased to be a member of a government, a member of this government, a member of the first government that, in the fifty-year history of this Province, in the fifty-year history of us being a Province in Confederation, we are the government, we are the people in government that have been able to visit upon the people of the Province a significant tax break, a significant reduction in the income tax burden that they are bearing. I believe that the expression of support generally that has come from the public is a clear indication, as I have said earlier, that this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing at the right time and, in terms of the measured way in which we have done it, it appears to be, on balance, the right level of relief that is recognized in this bill

Our personal rate will go outside of the surtaxes from 69 per cent down to 49 per cent. We will be in the middle of the pack in terms of all of the rest of the provinces in the country. This will also, of course, not only serve in an optical fashion but serve in a real fashion to encourage people to come to this Province to invest their money, to create business opportunities that will enable us to, probably some time down the road after these measures have been totally put into effect, announce even better and more significant tax breaks for the people of the Province.

The government of the Province is really only a means or a venue that enables all of the people of the Province to contribute by way of paying taxes to a common pot of resources so that the government of the day can deliver back to the people, in an efficient and an effective manner, at the best possible price, the level of services that the people of the Province expect and deserve. We believe that the services we are providing on a public basis to the people of the Province are being provided well. They are at a reasonable level in terms of need. They are at a reasonable level in terms of expectation, and certainly they are at a reasonable level in the context of our ability to do so.

The average taxpayer in this Province today is the better off because we were chosen to govern this Province for the next five years on February 9, 1999, and we will have delivered, by the end of our mandate, to the people of the Province, on every commitment that we have made during the election campaign; and if we can do better than that, we will do better than that. I think this bill is one clear indication of it. I do not think anybody can go back and find where we, as a government, promised specific tax relief when we ran the election campaign in February, but we did say, because we wanted to be honest with the people: If, as and when, we can provide a level of tax relief, we will do it. We did not do it because we did not make it a specifically big part of our platform because we wanted to be careful, to be cautious, and to be certain that what we promise we can deliver.

Mr. Speaker, any day I would prefer to be part of a team running and a government that is elected that is able to deliver over and beyond what we have promised, and to be able to provide significant measures such as this one, even though there is no compelling political reason to do it. We believe it is the proper thing to do on an economic basis and for the well-being and the sustenance of the economy of this Province.

 

Mr. Speaker, I know the members on the other side of the House are anxious to rise in unanimity, and with one voice and in one accord and say aye to the measures that are contained in this bill, but on the off chance that there may be somebody over there who wants to take thirty or sixty seconds to say something beyond aye to this particular bill, I will now sit down and give them opportunity to do so.

I would ask them to recognize that I stayed well shy of the hour I am allocated to speak in this debate as the alternate Minister of Finance, and I would hope that they would take their cue from that, being very observant, very astute and, at the end of the day, I think for the most part, a very commonsensical group of individuals. I know that they will not want to play politics with this, but that they will want to say what is appropriate, what is right, and for the record lend their support to this bill, which is of course, as I said earlier, a most historic piece of legislation on the occasion of a most historic event in the Province, the reduction of personal income taxes on a scale that two or three years ago could not have been contemplated or even imagined by anybody out there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I cannot help but noting the continuance of the wonderful dialogue that was carried on by my colleague the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's when he was noting all of the members on the other side of the House who have connections to the Conservative Party. Because this connection to Conservative policy continues. Because as the Leader of our party and everybody in the Province knows, one of the main tenets of the Conservative Party last February was that we had to handle the issue of the high rate of personal income tax paid by people in Newfoundland and Labrador in comparison to other provinces.

As a matter of fact, I just want to note that last winter when it was proposed by the Leader of the Conservative Party, and carried forward during the election, that we would reduce the personal income tax rate that we pay - 69 per cent of federal tax payable - by five percentage points, the Leader of the Liberal Party went on television and said how crazy that was, that we could not afford it, that it was not a good policy, it was not well thought out, and so and so forth. Yet by November 16 of the same year, 1999, the Minister of Finance is calling a press conference in the building here in which he is announcing that he is going to do that very thing.

We acknowledge on this side that the Leader of our party has gone on the record and said that we support this particular bill, and when the vote comes in this House we will stand and we will support it if there is a standing vote called. I do not expect there will be, but if there is we will be standing to support it. We just wish that it more adequately resembled the policy that we put forward in our Blue Book last winter.

I did notice as well that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, when he spoke, did not say what the tax rate for Newfoundland's share of personal income tax was when the Liberals came to power in 1989. It stands at this very day at 69 per cent of federal tax payable. In 1989 that tax was 60 per cent. After the reduction has taken place on January 1, 2000 we will reduce it to 62 per cent. We still have not reduced the taxes back to where they were when that party came to power in 1989. What this government is doing in essence is reducing the tax not to where it was in 1989, but it still going to be higher. In 1989 we were paying 60 per cent of the federal tax payable as part of our Newfoundland income tax system. Of course, that jumped up during the Wells government. It was jacked up to 69 per cent. This bill would bring it back to 62 per cent.

I could not help but noticing as well, when the minister introduced the bill, that he claimed credit for $175 million of tax savings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to point out that this bill does not provide for $175 million in tax savings. It isn't there. Because this bill is only a legislative commitment for the 2000 taxation year. That is all that is there. There is some promise that we will go beyond 2000 if the economy permits it, if we are strong enough, and so on and so forth. There is no legislative commitment beyond 2000. It is not in the act. It is not there. In the minister's statements there are promises; promises are made. Consequently, I want to point out the legislation does not commit the government beyond the 2000 taxation year. Of course, as many of us know, therefore the commitment beyond the year 2000 is purely a political promise. This particular piece of legislation in essence provides $30 million in taxation savings, not $175 million, because we will have to come back to the House again next year depending on the state of the economy.

So there are two things happening here. One is that the Province is looking for $175 million of credit, of applause, of recognition, but in essence what they are really doing is giving $30 million of tax savings to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not $175 million. It is $30 million. That is everything that is in this legislation.

MR. MERCER: What is wrong with $30 million?

MR. H. HODDER: There is nothing wrong with $30 million, I say to the Member for Humber East, but don't pretend it is $175 million unless the Member for Humber East is willing to rise in this place and put forward an amendment to this act which gives a legislative contract to go beyond the year 2000 and go into 2001 and 2002. The Member for Humber East is again sitting in the back seat. He is sniping at the members of the House who are speaking. If he were full of commitment for the good people of Pasadena and the good people of Humber East, he would be standing in his place and saying: I am a true Liberal. I am going to make an amendment. I am going to make sure that $175 million that was announced by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and trying to get credit for it, that it would be in the legislation.

It is not in the legislation. This bill gives a commitment only for $30 million. It is stage one. Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that if the commitments were to go through to the year 2000-2001 that there is another $60 million, another $85 million for total of $175 million, but we are talking here about legislation. We are talking here about what this bill provides for. This bill is a promise beyond 2000, but the law of the land when this bill passes will make a commitment only for the year 2000. There is nothing here that makes a commitment beyond that.

We know as well there is something else the minister did not talk about. He did not talk about the new system of tax on income announced by the Minister of Finance. We have not had a great deal of discussion on that, but while the announcement the minister made is recognized, it is in the right direction, we have not had a complete independent analysis done of the full impact of the tax on income system that will become effective, according to the minister, on January 1, 2001.

While we recognize that this is a step in the right direction, we do deplore the fact that the public relations business is saying it is a commitment beyond 2000 when in reality there is no commitment there other than a political commitment. There is no legislative commitment.

We acknowledge as well that Newfoundland's tax rates have to become competitive, have to become competitive with other provinces. At the same time that we are debating reducing our personal income tax rate from 69 per cent to 62 per cent, what is Alberta doing? Alberta is saying they are going to bring in a flat tax on income of 11 per cent. They are also saying right now that they are at 32 per cent; they are going to change all of that. Newfoundland is a long way from being competitive. If we are going to attract to Newfoundland the kind of professionals that we want to have living here, because of the oil and gas, and we want to be competitive across this country, we have to further address this issue. We acknowledge that this is a step in the right direction; however, we also acknowledge that we have to go even further.

We want to say as well that this particular piece of legislation introduces a two-tier taxation system. We talk here about the surtax. The net effect of this tax break is really about 3 per cent, because what we are really doing is going to people and saying: We are going to give you a tax break of 69 per cent to 62 per cent, but in reality we are saying: Now, we are going to put on a surtax.

That surtax is there now. There is a surtax in this Province right now. It starts at $60,100; however, this particular piece of legislation will have the effect of starting the surtax at just a little over $10,000. We could give you some documentation of that. I am sure all members have seen the profiles developed by the Department of Finance and they have had a good deal of public relations going out there. What they are doing, however, is that they are putting all of those profiles - they are trying their very best on that side to project this as something that it really isn't, because it is not the great tax break that they are saying it is. In essence, what they are doing is a public relations exercise. I don't blame them for doing that, but they should tell the people what the effect of the surtaxes really will be.

If we look at the taxation system that we have now, we know that the current surtax takes effect at $60,000. When you have $60,000 today, in 1999, you will pay a surtax. In fact, at $60,000 it amounts to a very small amount, less than $100, but then it rapidly goes up until it gets up to over $7,000.

If we were to go as well and look at what will happen in the new taxation system, when we now go into the new surtax - we already have one surtax; we will call that surtax one. That is already in place. Now we are going to put on surtax number two. In the current taxation system, you have two surtaxes. One you already have in place. That is for the upper, upper levels of the income - and we are not saying that it is not a sensible thing to do - but now we are going to start putting surtaxes on people with $10,000 of income. If you do the scale on that, which I have here in front of me - it was done by a chartered accountant firm for the purposes of my debate here - then we suddenly come out with the fact that we are going to be charging surtaxes at very low rates. The people between $10,000 of income and $60,000 of income, who do not now pay a surtax, these people will all pay surtax.

Now, what proportion of Newfoundland taxpayers fall between taxable incomes of $10,000 and $60,000? Probably 96 per cent to 97 per cent of all taxpayers in the Province will now be paying surtax. There is about 4 per cent who pay it now because it is $60,000. Essentially, all taxpayers will now be required to pay the surtax.

What we have done is, we have now taken the surtax - surtax number two, I will call it. Surtax number one is already there, and some of us pay that, but now we will have to pay surtaxes on all income earners in this Province. What this means is that the ordinary person will now be required to pay a surtax. In effect, what we have done is that we now - the government has decided to maximize its public relations.

I want to make a couple of points in conclusion, because I do understand that we have a couple of speakers who want to speak on this and I agreed with the House Leader, that I would not be any more than ten or fifteen minutes.

I want to make a couple of points. First of all, the first point is that this legislation that we are approving here does not make a commitment beyond the year 2000. Therefore, we are really legislating today, or when this bill passes, year one. We have made commitments. The minister, when he introduced it, said, $175 million of tax savings. In reality, the legislative commitment is for $30 million of tax savings.

That is alright. We are not disagreeing with the $30 million. We are simply saying, if you want to claim credit for $175 million of tax savings, then you should have the guts to put it right in legislation today. For the years 2001 and 2002, there is a political promise: Maybe yes, maybe no; we will look at it at that time. If the economy is good we will; if it is not good we will not, and so on and so forth.

The second point we want to make is that now we are going to be paying surtaxes at all levels. The government, on one hand - they have both hands in your right pocket and they only have one hand in your left pocket, you might say. They are kind of, shall we say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do that?

MR. H. HODDER: I don't know. I don't know how you could do that. You can do it with his jacket, I should say.

What I am saying is that on the one hand they are giving you twenty cents but they are taking ten cents back from you, and they are spreading the tax burden over all of the other categories.

Thirdly, we want to make the point that, while this is a step in the right direction, we are a long way in this Province from being in a competitive tax rate in comparison to all other provinces. In particular, if the other provinces are going to a tax on income system, we have a great deal of changes to make and catching up to do.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise today to speak for a few minutes on Bill 32. I understand that we will be debating this particular piece of legislation tomorrow as well, as I understand there are speakers from the other side who want to participate in the debate. As my learned colleague indicated, this particular legislation is an attempt to reduce from 69 per cent to 62 per cent the personal income tax for the year 2000. Of course, this was expressed in a very lavish press release several weeks ago by the Minister of Finance and the Premier.

We see in clause 1 (2) that: “Paragraph 4(8)(t) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (t) 69 % in respect of the 1993 to 1999 taxation years; and (u) 62 % in respect of the 2000 taxation year.”

There has been a lot of commentary as to what this will really mean for ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as we see this unfold over the next three-year period. However, Mr. Speaker, the issue of the personal income tax and the reduction -

MR. TULK: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK: I just wanted to ask the hon. gentleman, are you introducing an amendment now?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible), I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, just participating, just referring to one of the more interesting features of the bill, I say to the Government House Leader, as was found in sections 1 and 2 of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there was some debate in this House last week as to how, in a real way, we could make a difference in terms of improving the lot of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. One way perhaps was to address the issue of the reduction of personal income tax. However, in debate last week in this Legislature we also introduced the concept of the reduction of gasoline tax. Of course, this was a motion that was not considered seriously at the time. In fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy made reference to the fact that it would not be possible to reduce gasoline tax or any assessment on petroleum products in our Province, simply because if it was taken away from there, it would only have to be added elsewhere. It was obviously considered to be a situation that the government was not prepared to entertain at this particular time.

I do want to continue debating this particular piece of legislation and I will do that tomorrow. I will take the opportunity now to simply adjourn debate and resume tomorrow afternoon.

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

MR. TULK: I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. I would like to give hon. members enough notice. For Private Members' Day, I think we have a resolution by the Member for Torngat Mountains which we will be debating on Wednesday.

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