April 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like

to welcome to our galleries today twenty-five seniors from the Mount Pearl Parks

and Recreation Friendship Club, in the electoral district of Mount Pearl,

accompanied by the director, Ms. Sheila Dooley, Department of Parks and

Recreation of the City of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Health.

Minister, will you please tell us what you plan to do with, I

guess, the so-called election goodies that were handed out yesterday? Will we

see some money going to health care, as the Premier seemed to think in his

interview, or is it a case, as you and the Minister of Finance mentioned

yesterday, that there is going to be no new money this year? Why is there a

difference of opinion between you and your own Premier?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no difference of opinion between the Premier and

myself. If the hon. member would take time to ask for or seek to listen to the

transcripts of both what I said and the Premier said in the context of the

questions we were asked, you will find that there is great unanimity and

absolutely no contradictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, unanimity occurred when the Premier reached all the way

from Vancouver and slapped him on the wrist, or maybe this morning as he flew

overhead on his way to Bristol he reached down; then there was unanimity.

I ask the minister: You said in this House yesterday that we

will have an extra $66 million a year over three years for health,

post-secondary education, and social services. Now, yesterday the federal

announcement indicated that there will not be one cent of extra money allocated

over what is allocated this year. In fact, yesterday's announcement by the Prime

Minister indicated that the current level of Canada Health and Social Transfers

this year of $12.5 billion is not going to go down to $11 billion over the next

few years but will stay at that level. I ask the minister, in light of that

announcement - our Province during this fiscal year is now receiving $272

million under Canada Health and Social Transfer, down from $427 million two

years ago - if we have extra money: How much will we receive next year above

this $272 million we are receiving now?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the announcement yesterday by

the federal government was very clear; it was simply this: That

whereas there

was a previous announcement that the floor for the CHST would drop to around

$11.1 or $11.3 million, it would not now happen and that the floor would be

maintained and stabilized at $12.5 million. That simply means that the further

reductions that were to occur next year and the next and the next as previously

announced in other budgets no longer is the way they are going. It is now a

situation where next year we will have $16 million more than was predicted and

that we thought we knew about when we went on our budget three year planning

cycle. So, obviously it has an impact on what our fiscal capacity will be over

the next three years and to the extent that we know we are going to be better

off over the next three years then we had otherwise understood, it gives us

something to reflect on in the context of what we have already said we have to

work with this year.

So, it is very simple. The Leader of the Opposition tries to

make something more out of it then he wants to. He listens to the cut and paste

job that some of the media do on interviews. That is part of their job as well I

suppose, but the facts of the matter remain unaltered, unchanged, and very clear

to the simple mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the contrary, I am reading from your ministerial statement

yesterday, minister. It states: The extra $66 million it will mean for this

Province from 1998-99 to 2000, 2001 is significant and is evidence of the

federal governments understanding of the need for more funding in the area of

health, education, and social services. That is where it came from minister, not

from the media, not from anybody else and that is misleading the public and

telling them we are going to have more money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he is on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister has done nothing but flip-flop

on health care. He said the system was fine a couple of months ago. A couple of

weeks later it is adequate and now I say to the minister, it is stress now that

he needs the health care for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: when did he start

realizing we have a serious problem here in our system in this Province in

health care and will the minister commit today more money into the area of

health care, money that is desperately needed before this health care forum even

begins?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for

the anticipated outcome of consultation that we will have with front line

workers in this Province and others, with respect to matters having to do with

health care, to be foolish enough to respond and be baited by a question from

the Leader of the Opposition who asks: Will you commit to put money in before

you have consulted?

Well, that is not the way we operate, Mr. Speaker. We put

money in during the budgetary process after we have consulted, such as through

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board's consultation process. We put money

into our budget after we have heard from the Social Strategic Plan consultative

process and we will, if necessary and where appropriate, direct new money, if we

have it available to us, after we have consulted through the health forum. But

we are not going to prejudge what the recommendations of the stakeholders might

be or the consumers who have come forward; we will take the time to hear them

and then we will move appropriately thereafter.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, that is rather amusing. You take it out without

consulting but you do not want to put it in without consulting. Yes, is that not

hypocrisy? I say, Mr. Speaker, that is hypocrisy.

We heard tell of consultation - that word has been used a lot

over the past year. We heard it a lot a year ago, I say to the minister. Now, is

the minister really admitting today, by saying we are going to have a health

forum, that he does not know what areas of the health care system are in

trouble? Is that what he is telling us? Are you telling us that you do not even

know what is going on in your own department?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. We know that

there are areas where we have to pay more attention in the health care system

than in other areas. We know that there are certain difficulties, particularly

with rural doctors, and if the hon. member would recall, just a month or so ago,

he would also know that we made a significant effort, as a government, to

address that particular issue. The hon. member, if he were to think back just a

little bit, would recall that we put $1.5 million into the Budget last year to

address the cardiac waiting list problem. But some of these initiatives, Mr.

Speaker, take time to yield fruit and while we are waiting for that to happen,

and in the context of the concerns we have today in certain areas of health

care, we have decided to do a consultation process, and at the end of that, we

will determine what action will be appropriate.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and in the meantime, while we are waiting to bear fruit,

the tree fell down minister, that is what happened and you are flip-flopping

like a fish on a wharf. That is what you have been doing in health care for the

past number of months.

Now, I ask the minister, if he will stand in his place - Mr.

Speaker, he read in this House yesterday, that $66 million new dollars are being

put into health care, extra money that they are going to be given. I want the

minister to stand in his place and apologize for misleading the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador by that statement and withdraw it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the contrary, I will stand in my place and I will affirm

or re-affirm two things: number one, that the hon. member, not like most of the

things he puts forward, he does read fairly well. He did read the statement that

I presented yesterday. I did indicate that there were $66 million new dollars

going to be available, because it was $66 million that, up until yesterday

morning, we did not have at our disposal on a go forward basis commencing next

year. So there will be $66 million new dollars that we did not anticipate that

we will have to work with.

Let me assure the hon. member that the government that

governs this Province, through the Cabinet that has been put in place, under the

leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, will

make, I believe, I am confident, appropriate decisions on where that new money

will be spent in the interest of health care and/or other areas of social

concern.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. I believe the minister is aware of the convenience store in Castors

River that has been awarded funding under NORTIP. He is also aware that

Northside General Convenience Store is now suffering business losses as a result

of the government-funded competitor. I ask the minister, will he tell us what he

intends to do about this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that was raised

some weeks ago by the hon. member with my office. We have checked into this

particular matter. The BDCs, as you know, are governed by the Federal

Government, and they did issue forth a loan to a competitor in the local area.

We think that is wrong. We have made our feelings known to the Federal

Government in this regard. They should not be lending money where there is

already competition in place, and we have asked them to review the whole matter

for us.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, it is my understanding that NORTIP, who draw their money

from ACOA, are supposed to follow guidelines that ensure they do not provide

funding to a competitor of an existing business.

I ask the minister: Considering the proximity of the three

stores that were in the area prior to the money being given to the competing

store, and considering the out-migration in the area and the documented losses

by Northside General, what plans does the minister have at this particular time

to ensure that this issue is corrected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just responded to that

question. We think that particular loan made by this agency was inappropriate.

It is always inappropriate to take public funds and expend them at low interest

rates when there is competition and healthy competition in the area. Now,

currently, there are a number of convenience stores in that area. NORTIP issued

a loan, it was a preferential interest treatment loan. They should not have done

so. We have made our feelings very clear to the business development

section

through the Federal Government and through the member of Parliament concerned.

We are simply saying that it was wrong and we have asked for a full review of

the matter. We think it was most inappropriate, how they conducted themselves.

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: I ask the minister, outside of saying that

the decision by NORTIP was wrong and telling the Federal Government that you

feel their decision was wrong, what does the minister intend to do? What is the

minister going to do to reverse this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I

can say it. We have made our position quite clear. I know that when I was

Minister of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador and the current Minister for

Rural Renewal, we have very stringent guidelines in place to ensure that loans

are not procured where there is healthy competition in an area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Now, look, we do not govern federally. We are

not responsible for those programs. We are not there on a day-to-day basis. We

can only make our feelings and our views known to the appropriate people who

issue forth these loans, and we have done so.

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

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

My questions are to the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment, although the Minister of Health may be interested, as well. Several

nutritional studies in Newfoundland indicate that 25 per cent of our senior

population is nutritionally at risk. In other words, one in four of our seniors

are so poor they cannot afford adequate nutrition. This is a tragedy of great

proportion. What measures has the government taken to identify seniors that need

positive intervention and what pro-active measures has the government taken to

address this critical issue for our senior citizens?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question was directed to my hon. colleague, but

in-as-much as the responsibility for seniors in this Province rests with the

Department of Health. I am happy to respond to it.

The seniors of this Province have played a significant

part

in the growth and development of this Province, and if you are looking at a

government that has a concern for any part of the population that is point

specific, they are the seniors. I meet with the seniors groups regularly and I

take every opportunity to interact with them.

Specifically, what are we doing to assist seniors in the

Province? Well, the hon. member would know that we probably have the best

network of personal care homes in the Province, that care for a lot of our

seniors and are doing an excellent job. The hon. member would probably know that

we have exceeded the targets for long-term care beds in the Province over the

last ten years, such that we have an excess of capacity provincially in that

area. The hon. member would know that this government has instituted a

home-support program that is the richest and most enhanced in all of the

country, and we deliver a lot of our services to seniors in that regard. The

hon. member would know that there are a number of programs at work throughout

the community health system in this Province, through our community health

boards, that work toward ensuring that not only seniors but every segment of our

population has good information on nutrition and has good advice on nutrition,

and we seek to promote good nutritional habits and dietary patterns to aid and

abet their diet and their good health.

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

supplementary.

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

In other words, the government has done nothing to identify

those seniors who are at risk.

Dr. R. K. Chandra, an internationally renowned researcher in

nutrition, has shown conclusively that poor nutrition in this age group called

seniors is definitely linked to respiratory infections such as bronchitis,

pneumonia, and flu-like symptoms, and a significant proportion of health care in

seniors can be cut back if we can improve their diet.

Again, I ask the government: What are you doing to identify

those seniors at risk? And what programs are you going to introduce to be

proactive and start to address the problem?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I am not about, today, to try to get into a lengthy answer as

to what all of the programs are that are put out there and are active in trying

to aid and look after seniors in the Province. Frankly, I am sure I would not

remember most of them; so, as opposed to trying to put them all out there from

memory, I undertake to find out and table in the House for the hon. member a

specific answer to his specific question, as I understand it: What specific

programs do we have in place that are geared toward nutritional effectiveness

for seniors?

I will take that question under advisement and provide the

information in a timely fashion.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the

minister for the commitment.

In a report dated March, 1996, Dr. Chandra estimated that for

every dollar spent in dietary counselling to improve the nutritional status of

seniors, we will save $10 in health care costs; good prevention practices or, to

use the clich most common today, good, healthy public policy. They say that

addressing the issue of nutrition for seniors is good public policy. It

certainly is good social policy, it is good fiscal policy, it is good medical

policy, and it is good human policy.

I say to the government: I ask the minister if he would be

more proactive and identify the long-term strategies, share them with the

seniors, share them with the public, so that the seniors in this Province can

know that the government in this Province is willing to invest $1 dollar,

because investing $1 in nutritionally-funded programs will save $10 in good

future public-spending dollars.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member reads very well from Dr. Chandra's writings,

and I could not take any issue with any comment or proposition that Dr. Chandra

puts forward. I say the hon. member does very well to read from Dr. Chandra's

writing, but there is not very much original coming from the hon. member in what

he said.

To the more substantive part of his question, I, certainly,

on behalf of this government, will commit to continue to have the high level of

collaboration, dialogue and discussion, interaction, and all other types of

mechanisms that we can use, to work with the seniors of the Province through

their provincial associations, as represented by their president, Mrs. Gladys

Snow, from Bonne Bay, through Don Hollett who is the national president of the

seniors of Canada, working with him, through the Seniors Resource Centre which

operates in St. John's, and all of the other venues and opportunities and

agencies that represent seniors. I do make a commitment to continue that high

level of collaboration and working relationship with them to ensure that the

seniors of this Province are best served by a good Liberal government with a big

Liberal heart.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I would like to revisit an issue that was raised yesterday

and ask the Minister of Education some more specific questions dealing with the

Terra Nova project.

Minister, what shortfalls have your department identified in

local personnel availability for the Terra Nova project and what corrective and

foresightful training initiatives are being prepared by your department to

ensure that the positions that become available are taken by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be that a

specific job by job analysis in terms of looking at short comings for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians has not been completed recently.

There was work done on that, that dates back almost a decade

in terms of opportunities in the offshore, Mr. Speaker, because with respect to

Terra Nova, everybody understands now that it was not until very recently that

the type of platform they were intending to use was not public knowledge, except

in the last few months or so.

They are still looking at some possible revisions, but the

generic nature of the types of job opportunities that are available in

construction of whatever type of facility and platform they use is already

well-known in the industry and in the Province. And with respect to operational

matters on the type of production platform that they actually use offshore, the

details that are being finalized again the college system in the Province, the

Marine Institute and the University have already geared up for the generic types

of jobs.

It was only recently that I was at the Seal Cove campus of

the college of the North Atlantic with the federal member for St. John's East,

announcing the new training modules that are available for offshore drilling

that are already filled to capacity by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who

have sought out themselves the type of information about the job opportunities

that are going to be available offshore and are already in training, so that

they will be well-trained and able to take the jobs that are available.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me that the

short answer is that there are no foresightful training initiatives being put in

place to take advantage of future employment opportunities for people in this

Province.

I would like to ask the minister this: Does he share

Petro-Canada's assertion that there is enough skilled labour in Canada and in

other maritime regions in the world to fulfil the drilling requirements of

Petro-Canada? Does he share that assertion by Petro-Canada and, if so, why is

he, as minister, allowing that to happen?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the hon. member opposite is probably again,

like some portion of our population of Newfoundland and Labrador, trying to make

some real parallels and comparisons to the Terra Nova project and the Hibernia

project.

The reason the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and

interest in training for the Hibernia project was because it was supported by

vast amounts of public money. And because there was public money in it, because

there were taxpayers' dollars in it, we felt that we were obligated to direct

the actual training for that particular project. Terra Nova is very different,

Mr. Speaker. Terra Nova is private sector, industry-driven. When the

representatives of the Terra Nova group say that for their purposes - because it

is their money, there is no taxpayers' money from anybody in Newfoundland or

Labrador, there is no federal taxpayers' money in this, it is their private

investment dollars. They do not feel any particular onus, obligation or

commitment to ensure that anyone gets the job other then someone qualified.

We have pointed out to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and

have already prepared them, by making sure that our colleges, the Marine

Institute and the University, know the kinds of jobs that are available at Terra

Nova. We do not have any money in it, we are not paying for any training

specifically for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. But those who have already

come forward and expressed an interest through government or through the

industry sector itself, they know what kinds of jobs are there, they are already

in training programs training themselves, the same, Mr. Speaker, as if they

would opt to train to be a teacher.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: - at the university, and nurse through the

nursing schools and so on. They have ferreted out the opportunities, they are in

the training programs and Terra Nova is quite right -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: - in its own right to suggest that there are

lots of people already available for them and we are hoping most of them would

be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for kilbride, a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, nobody, nobody in this House

faults Terra Nova or faults Petro Canada for looking after Petro Canada, but I

do fault the minister for not looking after the people of this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this: Isn't it

time for the government, specifically your department, to begin to maintain a

skills certification directory, that would catalogue clearly the positions that

we have available on the one hand, the skilled personnel to match it on the

other hand and on the third hand, where deficiencies exist, that we put training

programs in place right now so people in this Province, not in Canada, not in

the maritime regions around the world but the people in this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador can take full advantage of those employment

opportunities? Would you not agree with that, minister?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon.

member made that speech in asking a question because in fact, Mr. Speaker, that

is exactly the approach that has been taken.

The answer that I gave in case he missed it somewhere, was

that the generic types of jobs that are available in offshore have already been

categorized in the Province, that has been done over a ten-year period since a

former Premier by the way, Premier Peckford started touting that oil was going

to save Newfoundland and Labrador back in the 70s, so it is almost twenty years

ago now that people started doing that kind of inventory and the proof is in the

pudding, Mr. Speaker, to coin a phrase, in that he should check with the people

who are already in the training programs at Seal Cove, directed at both Hibernia

and Terra Nova because the inventory has been done, it is recognized that there

is not 100 per cent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians trained to take the jobs;

they have already gone into the training programs. The second batch will go into

the training programs later this spring; they will all be trained and available

to seek the jobs in the Terra Nova project when it comes on stream in a year or

so, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker. my question is to the Minister of Forestry

Resources and Agrifoods.

Yesterday I asked the minister a couple of questions

concerning Newfoundland Farm Products and I would like to ask him another

question today, if he would confirm that this particular facility is now sold

and the owner is the Independent Broilers Association Of Newfoundland?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. gentleman

for his question and let me say to him that the government is following what we

would consider to be normal procedure in what we announced in the Budget Speech

and that is, that we would be divesting ourselves of Newfoundland Farm Products;

and let me say to him that there are all kinds of rumours floating around as to

what is going on, but let me just say to him that on Thursday we will give him a

directive by Cabinet, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the Premier

and I, and that on Sunday of this week, we met with the unions which we consider

to be normal procedure and that we outlined certain options and certain things

to them which we felt should be kept confidential at the time, and Mr. David

Curtis who is making certain announcements today in the press was not even

present, he was informed on Friday but couldn't make it.

On Monday they requested another meeting with us and we met

with them and Mr. Curtis came in half-way through that meeting and we again said

to them that we would consider certain options in the best interest of the

employees of Corner Brook, this is a painful experience for them and in the best

interest of trying to protect them until they had a chance to hear it from us,

we then agreed that we would take those options today to a meeting of employees.

A member of the Department of Finance and the Chairman of the board would take

those options to the employees in Corner Brook and discuss them and I am

appalled to hear today, in the press for example that, Mr. Curtis has said that

we did not even bother to

schedule a meeting, when he knew yesterday when he

left that meeting that we were going to

schedule a meeting and that it was going

to occur today and that it is occurring this evening, this late afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. gentleman I welcome his

question and his concern but I am not going to stand in this House and talk

about any options about the Corner Brook plant. I am not going to follow the

lead of the union leaders in this Province and stand in this House and talk

about the options that are available to the employees in Corner Brook until

people on the board and people concerned with negotiations have had a chance to

discuss them with them this afternoon.

We made a decision on Thursday and I say to the Opposition

and to Mr. Curtis and to anybody else in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - that wants this negotiated in public that we

will refuse to do so -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his

answer quickly please.

MR. TULK: - in the interest of the employees in Corner

Brook.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

minister the people have a right to know. I ask the minister if he would confirm

in this House today that eighty to 100 people presently working in Corner Brook

operations will be displaced and have no job within the next two weeks, pending

on the sale of this particular facility?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. member

that he will see in the fullness of time that there are some very false

assumptions in what he is saying. I say to him again, in the interests of the

employees of Corner Brook, that they have a right to hear it first from the

employer, which in this case happens to be a board and Newfoundland Farm

Products, and they will hear it later on this afternoon. That was the only time,

the earliest time, that it could be done. I have to question the motivations of

other people in this Province who are out making statements in public before we

have had a chance to discuss this with the very people affected -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - and I won't do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to present the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in these

challenging times, is making significant efforts to achieve economic renewal and

diversification in rural areas of the Province; and

WHEREAS various government initiatives in partnership with

communities throughout the Province have realized the creation of significant

business development in the Province; and

WHEREAS some of these initiatives such as, Piccadilly

Plastics Limited in Piccadilly, Steel Core Industries Limited in Buchans,

Superior Glove Works in Point Leamington and the tannery announced this week for

Baie Verte are evidence of government's continuing support and encouragement for

diverse economic development activity throughout the Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly support

the government in its continuing efforts to identify new opportunities and in

furtherance of its ongoing policy of forming partnerships with communities and

the private sector in the process of economic diversification.

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to once again present a

petition on behalf of people opposed to the privatization of the parks in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, I met some people from Long

Harbour, Whitbourne, Mount Arlington Heights, Torbay and different areas who

signed this petition and the prayer of the petition is as follows;

We the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to

petition the provincial government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation and the Premier to immediately reverse the decision to privatize the

provincial parks, as they are the people's resource. We feel that this decision

was made in haste without any consultation of the people who own the parks, the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing concern of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course there are many, many people opposed to the

privatization of the parks in Newfoundland and Labrador. We had the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation trying to rationalize the sale of the parks in

Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the fact that she said they had

seventy-seven applications for twenty-one parks. Now that is less than three -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Seven sites, okay, whatever.

Twenty-one parks and seven sites and they had less than three

signs of interest per park, yet I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that if you looked

at the number of people that signed petitions in Newfoundland and Labrador it

would far outweigh the number of people who showed interest in the privatization

of parks. I suppose if you were going to privatize anything, if you were going

to privatize a beach rock you would have some people show an interest in trying

to get some kind of a business going. With respect to the situation that is

going on in this Province today, many people in this Province, Mr. Speaker, are

in a self survival mode and they are looking for anything at all that can help

them out through the hard times that are being imposed upon them by this

administration.

Now we don't only see that the privatization of the parks is

foremost on the mind of the Minister of Tourism but now she is talking about

attacking the gravel pit campers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now that is

something that has developed over the years to be a tradition in Newfoundland

and Labrador, the people who go to areas they call gravel pits but, Mr. Speaker,

that is basically a misnomer, gravel pit campers, because many people who go out

and go into these sites are not necessarily into gravel pits.

Now there are some that were gravel pits many, many years ago

when the Trans Canada Highway was being built and they have grown over. They

have bushes or alders - as we refer to them in Newfoundland and Labrador - but

there are other areas in the Province, meadows and clearings that people use.

They go and park their trailers there and utilize it for the summer months. Now

the red herring being thrown into this, Mr. Speaker, of course is the red

herring of the environment, that these people abuse the areas. There is no doubt

that you get good and bad in every walk of life or every resource that is being

utilized. There may be a few who do abuse the environment but there should be

regulations brought in place to deal with those people. We should not penalize

everybody for the sake of a few.

The minister has been in the media and there were certain

groups in society in the private sector lobbying the minister to basically

disband gravel pit camping for their own benefit, mind you, to their own

benefit, and they will say, basically, that: We only want certain areas to be

off limits to these gravel pit campers for various reasons.

The problem here is this: If they start with one area, then

they will move to another area and then to another area where gravel pit camping

will be forbidden, and then we have another tradition in Newfoundland and

Labrador taken away from the people who live here.

Mr. Speaker, when I say `the people who live here', the

number of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, is declining yearly,

monthly, weekly. We have had, in our last census to the present month, 17,000

people in total leave this Province. Now that is a net difference. Of course, we

have had people coming into the Province - we have people moving back into

Newfoundland and Labrador - but we are talking about 17,000 people moving out of

the Province. Now we are going to put another restriction on these people,

people who really cannot afford to be taking their holidays out of the Province

because of the economic environment created by this administration and their

cousins in Ottawa. They have been taking money right, left and centre out of the

pockets of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing to speak to this petition today. I have spoken

to this petition and presented many petitions on this particular issue, and I am

most happy to support the people who have signed this petition.

We have seventy-seven proposals on the twenty-one parks and

seven sites, and yet we have over 15,000 names on petitions of people speaking

out against the privatization of provincial parks.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the majority of the

people in this Province do not want the provincial parks privatized, do not want

the provincial park structure tampered with, and do not want experimentation

with the privatization of provincial parks, most especially in 1997, our Cabot

year, and most especially without consultation with the people who own these

parks, those people being the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the government sees fit to make

many decisions lately without any consultation with the people who are affected,

and this is another example. Some of these provincial parks are the most widely

used parks in the Province. Some of the parks that are being privatized have the

highest rates of visitors and the highest rates of return on the taxpayers'

dollars.

While we all agree these parks are not moneymakers, the parks

employees themselves approached the Department of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation shortly after this announcement was made and suggested that they

would be able to provide alternative ways to cut back on the expenditure on the

parks. Perhaps they would not be able to save the full $1.8 million, but if the

government had consulted with the park employees and the people affected by the

closures of the parks, most especially the people of our Province, perhaps they

would have come up with some alternatives in order to save most of the $1.8

million, as opposed to privatizing these parks.

On that note I will sit down. I just wanted to support this

petition and the people who have signed it.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of

residents of the Province who are concerned about the issue of child poverty,

and in particular that of hungry children who are attending our schools.

Mr. Speaker, there were questions earlier today of this

government on the issue of seniors' nutrition, and a number of problems were

outlined and identified to the government. When finally someone from the

ministry discovered that they should respond to this, the response was appalling

- appalling that the Minister of Health quite literally appeared to know nothing

whatsoever of the state of nutrition of senior citizens in this Province. Nor

did he seem to be aware of what, if anything, his department was doing to

consider programs to alleviate some of the difficulties that our seniors are

facing in the area of nutritional needs which, let's face it, is closely attuned

to the health of our citizens.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have children who are

hungry every day of their lives, and who are going to school hungry and are not

able to learn, and the Minister of Education has, on a couple of occasions in

this House, risen to his feet and said that the voluntary sector should look

after this.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that that is good enough. These

petitioners have asked the government - and I read the prayer of the petition:

We the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to

establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in

Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a

better chance.

There is an awful lot of lip service being given to the issue

of child poverty in Canada. It has become the rhetoric of the federal Liberals,

and the provincial Liberals jump on the bandwagon every now and then. But when

there is an opportunity to take action such as there is here I don't see any

action at all. What we see is government making some petty contribution, given

the size of the problem, to a voluntary program based on a model which has good

points in terms of its delivery of the service. In terms of the delivery of the

service, it is a stigma free service that makes available a nutritious meal in

the schools where it is able to operate. On that side of it, it is a very good

program. On the side of it where it counts in terms of being able to deliver

that service throughout the schools of the Province, and particularly some of

those that may need it most, it is unable to deliver because it doesn't have the

resources, and the communities themselves don't have the resources to deliver

that program on a volunteer model.

We need a universal comprehensive school lunch program. Those

of you who visit your districts, those of you who talk to people in their homes,

those of you who are aware of the needs that your own constituents have, know

that the situation is not very good. It is desperate in fact, and it is getting

worse because more and more people are coming off the protection of the

so-called social safety net. They are being cut off TAGS, they are being

declined for unemployment insurance because of the changes in the rules, they

are being cut off social assistance, they are being cut off home care, they are

being turfed out of programs which provided for social assistance recipients to

get student aid to enable them to attend University but didn't have to borrow

money to feed their children. Now the Minister of Human Resources and Employment

has told single parents who are attending Memorial University that you have to

borrow money from the bank on a student loan to feed your children. That is the

policy of this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Humber East says that his kids

have to borrow money for student loans. That is fair enough. But they don't have

to borrow money to feed their children when they are trying to get themselves an

education to better themselves and better their lot. These are social assistance

recipients. If the government wants them to stay on social assistance for the

rest of their lives, if that is the incentive that they want to give them, then

they are doing a very good job of it. They are going to have people quitting

university and staying on social assistance because they can't afford to borrow

enough money to feed their children.

That is the policy of this government, Mr. Speaker. Instead

of providing support for these families, instead of providing support for

children who are going to school hungry, this government is turfing them out on

their own and making them worse off. This is a very important petition. The

petitioners have asked the government to consider the affects of child hunger on

the ability of their children to learn in school -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and ask the government to institute this

program.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise again today

to support the petition put forward by my colleague for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

Today in question period I made note of the fact that not

only do we have great numbers of our children who are living in poverty, but

certainly we also know that great numbers of our seniors have great difficulties

with finding good food of great nutritional value as well.

We know that poverty, with all of its attendant problems,

with the problems that we have identified here, and numerous times that the

member and I have spoken on this issue, we know that that is one of the greatest

barriers to achievement that has been identified over and over again. We will

continue, or I will continue, to support this particular petition regardless of

how many times it is put forward, and I will endeavour to speak to it every

single time.

We cannot continue to ignore the children of this Province.

We can't continue to say to our children by our actions that we don't care,

because the consequences of not caring is to produce a generation that will be

lost. We know what happens when children are not properly cared for; they grow

up to be adults who will not be able to have fulfilling lives and will not be

able to reach their full potential. So we say to all members of the House: What

are you going to do about it?

Research has shown conclusively the evidence. Research has

shown that we will be less of a nation, less of a Province, less as a society,

if we don't handle this problem. So, Mr. Speaker, we say to you today, and

through you to all members of this House, that these children who are at risk in

this Province - we know that there are 40,000 of them in school this afternoon -

nearly 40 per cent of the school-aged population of this Province is in school

today and they have not had a good lunch.

While we commend those who are putting forward positive

programs, we commend the actions of private business and the volunteer groups in

this Province who are doing all they can, they cannot do it alone. They cannot

do it alone. We know that we must do something better. We have to do it because

the cost of not doing it is so great. We should have an interventionist policy.

We should have a policy that says we are going to stand up for children; we are

going to stand up for them from the time they are conceived until they get right

through their teenage years and through the university years.

We have to be proactive. We have to be good decision makers.

We know the consequences of not being proactive. We know, when we look at the

school system. Look at the dropout rate. See which group in the population has

the highest dropout status; they are the children of the poor. See which group

had the highest numbers in special education; they are the children of the poor.

See which group will tend to leave school without graduating, even junior high

school in some cases; they are the children of the poor. Even look within our

centres like the correctional centre at Whitbourne, and do a little study and

see what the relationship is between being in poverty and being behaviourial

dysfunctional and also a child who is more at risk to end up in some remedial

institution.

Mr. Speaker, the consequences of poverty are to continue the

cycle of illiteracy, to continue the cycle of dependency. When we hear the

government say that they want to break the cycle of dependency, there is one

clear way to do it, and that is start with the very young. Start with them

before they get in school, and continue to support them all throughout their

school-age years. Make sure that every hungry child's needs are met so that they

can have an opportunity to be not only good children but to grow up and be good

adults, and they themselves will then be committed to breaking the cycle. Break

it with the children who are there today, and then you won't have to break it

thirty or forty years from now.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Province does not have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: We know that the Province does not have

great deals of money, but we should establish where our real priorities are. At

the moment they are certainly not with the children of this Province.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

AN HON. MEMBER: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. The hon. the Member for Bonavista

South, I believe, adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

speak on the motion put forward by my colleague, the non-confidence motion on

the Budget.

We are certainly living today in very, very uncertain times.

If you go out and visit rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, and talk to some

of the people you will see on the streets, visit some of the people you find out

of work, unable to find a job, unable to provide for their families, you will

know very quickly what the moratorium, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, has done to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I don't know if we ever knew for sure what the fisheries

meant until 1992. Everybody took it for granted because it was always there for

us. It was always a place where you could go. You could go down on the wharf and

you could pick yourself up a couple of hours' work, or you could pick yourself

up a summer's job at the local fish plant. You could go there and you could earn

enough money in the summertime to go back to university or buy new clothes for

high school. It was always there and it was always something that we took for

granted. We didn't realize the importance of the fishery to this Province until

it disappeared, until it was taken from us, in 1992.

Leading up to 1992, 1989, 1990, 1991, terrible times in the

fishery. Most of the fish plant operators realized the valuable contributions

their employees were making, and they always managed to transport fish from one

plant to another in order to provide at least the minimum amounts of employment

that you need in order to qualify for UI. Most people had an income over the

winter months. It is only now when we are seeing our TAGS program cut back,

funding taken away from this Province, taken out of the pockets of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, people who built this Province, it is only now

when we are taking funding away from them and we are sending them to the

Department of Human Resources and Employment, that we realize - and do they

realize as well, I guess, it works both ways- what the fishery really meant to

Newfoundland and Labrador.

It must be an awful thing to find yourself fifty or

fifty-five years old without an education and without any prospects of a job.

MR. EFFORD: Do you realize nobody's listening to you?

MR. FITZGERALD: You're listening, I say to the - if

you're not you should, because you might be able to learn something. The

minister knows very well what I'm talking about. Because even though he gets up

and shouts and hollers and talks about the wonderful things he does for his

district, there is a lot of people in the minister's district hurting as well.

He would be the first to admit that, that they aren't all getting up in the

morning and going to work.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of us here in this House get

any joy out of waking up in the morning and getting dressed and putting on your

boots and going outdoors to go to work and look next door and see your neighbour

looking out through the window with nowhere to go. No need of him getting

dressed. There's no need of him getting up and going outdoors because he has

nothing to do. It is a sad way to find yourself.

I remember growing up. The community that I grew up in

probably wasn't as badly hit as many of the other rural Newfoundland communities

because there was no fishery there. The community where I lived, most people

went away to work. They went away and they came back on weekends. It was a

common thing to be gone all summer long. It wasn't a fishing community. But most

communities in my district now are fishing communities. It is a situation where

they could have left school at an early age, jumped in the fishing boat or went

in the fish plant, and they could have made very good money. It wasn't uncommon

for people in those fishing communities to have the mother and the father and

the brother and the sister, the whole family, working in the fish plant. When

the siren went at noon they would get aboard their car and the whole family went

home for dinner and sat at the kitchen table. At 1:00 p.m. they were back in the

plant again, every one of them making in excess of $10.00 an hour.

Very good money, making a good living. Didn't know what it

was to be without. Catered to the local businesses in the communities. They

didn't have time to drive thirty miles for an outing, or to go off on a Saturday

to spend the day shopping. There was lots of work to do in the communities

around their house because they were working during the week. As a result,

people were working, the communities were flourishing, the local businesses were

busy, they were making money, and everybody was happy. Everybody was wearing a

smile.

Not so today. In many of those communities where those

individuals left school when they were old enough to leave without getting their

parents in trouble, they hopped aboard the fishing boat or they went to the fish

plant and they did very well. Now, all of a sudden, in 1997 they find themselves

without an education and without a job, and where do they go? I say to the

Minister of Social Services, it is not an option for some of those people to be

told to go to Alberta, or they are hiring up in Yellow Knife or up in the North

West Territories. Mr. Speaker, it is a frightening thing for some of those

people to be told that they must now pull up stakes at fifty-five or sixty years

old, give up everything they always loved, give up something that they worked

for all their lives and have to go away to find a job to keep body and soul

together. I am not sure that we are doing enough, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

sits in his seat and shouts across the House. I say to him, in his other life he

was a champion of the people. In his other life he was a champion of the

fishermen and the fish plant workers. Now, he has been silenced, he has been

beaten into submission, he is now part of it, very meek, not saying a word. When

did you hear the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture speak out on the negative

things that are happening to the fishermen and the fish plant workers in

Newfoundland and Labrador?

AN HON. MEMBER: He told them the other day in a meeting

that he would not march with them.

MR. FITZGERALD: He told them the other day in a meeting,

my colleague tells me, that he would not even march with them. You saw him a few

months ago down on the water front when he was hopping from boat to boat with

the megaphone in his hand and the light on his forehead. I saw him down there

one day, he had one of those mining lights on his head, jumping from boat to

boat so he could be recognized. Where is he now? Where is he now?

MR. EFFORD: Where were you?

MR. FITZGERALD: I was working, trying to feed my family,

I say to the minister, but I was not carrying on a bluff like you were doing.

The people knew where I was, but I say to the minister, you do not know where

you were. You do not know where you were then, because you were certainly out of

your league. You were certainly, Mr. Minister, carrying out a job that you were

not qualified to do, number one - and number two, that you were not sincere in

doing. I say to the minister - and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo knows what

I am talking about, because he confirmed it with me a short time ago. He knows

what I am talking about; he is having the same frustrations over there.

MR. EFFORD: Did you hear what I said?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say?

MR. EFFORD: He is going to get (inaudible) what is going

on.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister that he had an

opportunity to have input into Port Union and Catalina and Melrose and that area

the other day, when his cousin up in Ottawa was dishing out shrimp quota. He had

his chance to be able to do something for the people there, and for whatever

reason, they saw fit to put it all in one particular area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He has one up there, for sure, and the

minister remains silent while all the (inaudible) is brought back here to this

Island and put on our people, and that is unfair.

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when people were leaving this

Province, a lot of people were leaving because they wanted to leave. They wanted

to see the other life. They heard about Toronto and Boston. It is nothing new

for Newfoundlanders to be going away. It is nothing new - it has happened ever

since we have been here. You talk to people down in New York and Boston and up

in Toronto and they will tell you that Newfoundlanders built their cities, they

put up the skyrises, they built the bridges - hard-working people. But what is

happening today that was not happening before is a situation where we are losing

our young people. We are losing our brightest minds, I say to the minister. That

is the sad thing that is happening here today. We are talking about the price of

education and how we hold it sacred, and if we do not educate our people we will

never get out of the doldrums that we are in today. We are saying that in order

to improve the unemployment level, in order to get people working, we need to

educate our young people and we need to keep them here in this Province. What is

saddening today is seeing the young people leaving this Province, having to go

away to find a job, after they go through the school system here, and even

though they are paying tuition fees, which many of them cannot afford, and they

are coming out owing $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 if they live in rural areas. In

spite of all that, they are taking all their wisdom, all their intelligence and

enthusiasm to other provinces and to other countries.

I had to smile the other day when I heard the Minister of

Finance get up - I think it was the Minister of Finance - and talk about the

unemployment levels, how they have gone down. There is a very good reason why

the unemployment levels have gone down here in Newfoundland: it is because most

of our young people, Mr. Speaker, 17,000 of them, have not been able to find an

opportunity to work here, and they are now in Alberta and British Columbia

working. And those provinces are receiving the benefits for what we have helped

pay for, number one - and number two, it will be our loss for years to come. I

do not think you are going to see those young people return to Newfoundland.

Most of them, when they go away, they start a new life and you will not see them

return here to Newfoundland or Labrador other than to visit, and that is sad. It

is a sad situation to find ourselves in.

I think what the Minister of Finance should do or the

Minister of Human Resources and Labour - when they put out the next statistic

that shows the unemployment levels, I suggest they put out the figures that show

the employment levels. I think you will find that in the employment levels,

there is probably not a lot of difference from the unemployment levels. I would

be very surprised if there is more than 40 per cent of the people in this

Province employed. I would be very surprised. The unemployment levels do not

take into consideration the people on the TAGS program. The unemployment levels

do not take into consideration the people who have given up looking for a job,

the seniors or the people who are on social assistance, not actively looking for

employment. They do not show any of that. So I would suggest that there is

probably not many more than 40 per cent, in this Province, working today. I do

not see how the government can improve the economy of this Province by creating

lay-offs, by putting people on social assistance and by putting people on

unemployment insurance. It cannot be done. Unless you get people back to work

and paying into the economy of this Province, Mr. Speaker, it will never, ever

improve.

Now, the Premier of another government, who sat opposite

there, Mr. Wells, is on record for saying that this Province could not support

any more than 260,000 people. Mr. Wells is on record for saying that, that this

Province cannot support a population greater than 260,000 people. So we know

where the government is heading. We know what their projections are. We know

what their goals are, Mr. Speaker. I always thought the more people that you

had, the greater the population, the greater the opportunity. The greater the

chance of going into business and having a population to be able to buy, produce

and be there to consume, but not according to this government.

Government, then, in their wisdom, on April 1, introduced the

HST. I have not heard one squeak from one member opposite about the negative

impact that the HST will have on those who are less fortunate. All we heard them

talking about was the great savings you would have if you bought a fur coat or

if you bought a new automobile -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) or a boat.

MR. FITZGERALD: - or a new boat. If you bought a boat,

like the Companion , Mr. Speaker, you would save some money - a big, new

fibreglass trawler that is cruising the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador,

owned by the minister - buying some fuel here and there but he does not know

what he is doing, does not know how to operate it, how to read the compass, how

to read the radar. Mr. Speaker, there is a calamity waiting to happen. You watch

and see. No wonder the Coast Guard is going to start charging people for going

out and getting them and pulling them into harbours. No wonder, Mr. Speaker,

that people like these are costing the government of the day hundreds of

thousands of dollars when they go out, break down and do not know how to fix

their motors, do not know how to fix their rudders. The people in King's Cove

could tell them all about that.

I had a phone call yesterday from an individual in my

district. In fact, he wrote a letter to the local paper and he talked about

government not taking

part in the `Now You Are Cooking' program. That is a

picture, that is exactly what it is. It is a situation where, and everybody

knows, I suppose, the greatest cause of fires in this Province today is the old

chip fryer, the old boiling pot of fat on the stove, is probably the greatest

cause of injury and death in fire-related injuries today, this old chip fat

fryer. The children especially come home and put on the stove and turn up the

heat and the next thing you know, you have the fat frying and you have the chips

in and somebody falls asleep or somebody gets carried away to do something else,

and boom, you have an explosion, and most of the time, Mr. Speaker, you read

about the tragedies in the paper or you hear it on the news the next day.

Newfoundland Light and Power came forward with a program

whereby they offered a sixty-dollar reduction for anybody who would go out and

buy a CSA approved deep fat fryer, sixty dollars from a corporation right here

in this Province. They had an agreement with Canadian Tire, they identified a

suitable deep fryer, the cost was something like $129, they would provide sixty

dollars, the consumer would go and pay - well, he would get it for half-price.

People called the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

asking him if government would take

part in this particular program and take the

taxes off the deep fryers. You had a corporation putting forward sixty dollars,

you had people going out, people who probably could not afford to buy it but

they saw an opportunity and were willing to dip into their pockets and take out

another sixty-nine dollars and go out and buy a deep fryer so that their

children might be able to enjoy a meal of french fries and do it in safety. So

they called the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and asked him if

government would now take

part in this program, a very worthwhile program - I

don't think anybody here will doubt that - and asked if him if they would do

away with the taxes on that particular purchase. `No', Mr. Speaker, absolutely

not. In fact, do you know what they did? Instead of taking this particular and

coupon and getting a reduction of sixty dollars and paying taxes on the

sixty-nine dollars, government said you must pay taxes on the $129 which is the

list price of that deep fryer, and that is terrible.

That is terrible, I say to members opposite. Is that going to

break the government? Is that, Mr. Speaker, going to cause the government to

revisit this Budget or dip into the contingency fund? Is that going to make them

have to dip into their $30 million? That is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. All they

were asking for was a reduction in sales tax for the purchase of a deep fryer

that would probably save them hundreds of thousands of dollars anyway, but the

government of the day, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, who is

walking into the room now, Mr. Speaker, would have nothing to do with it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Tell him again, ask him why.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, he is well aware of the requests that

were brought forward. In fact, it was raised in one of the local paper at the

time as well.

It is terrible ,I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board, it is terrible that you are so cold-hearted. When you are home sipping

your wine, when he is home, Mr. Speaker, being a connoisseur of wine, you have a

possibility happening out there today where younger children are going home,

taking a pot out of the cupboard, throwing in the fat, putting it on the stove

and a chance that the whole house will go up like a bomb, all for the uncaring

attitude of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and this particular

government.

The second year for this program was 1996, and to show you

how popular it was for the two years... It was only for two months. I think

Fireman's Week - what is the proper name for it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fire Safety Week.

MR. FITZGERALD: Fire Safety Week starts about the first

week in October of each year, so Newfoundland Power and Canadian Tire had this

program going from October 1 until the end of the year. They took it further

than the week that was set aside for Fire Safety Week. They had it going for

three months, October, November and December, and during that time frame there

were 2,336 deep fryers sold in 1995, which was the year that the program and the

thought was implemented - 2,336 - and in 1996 there were 6,155 deep fryers sold.

That is how popular this particular program was, over 8,000 deep fryers sold in

six months, but it was once again a situation where government could have

stepped in, responded to a problem, helped with the concerns that are out there

and, I suppose if you would, reached out a hand to those who were less

fortunate.

Many of us did not want the $60. Many of us probably could

have afforded to go out and pay the $129, but the option was still there for us

to use the $60 coupon. It was still there, but it is another situation where

this government reached out with an uncaring hand and took something away from

those who are the least fortunate in this Province today, the poor, the people

who are at the lowest income, and tried to solve the problems of the country

once again on the backs of the working poor, another example of how uncaring

this particular government is today.

Before I got up to speak, I had to go and borrow the

Departmental Salary Details. When you talk about deep fryers, I suppose you have

to jump right into one of the biggest wastes of money in which this government

and other governments before us have taken part, something that should be

stopped immediately, should never, ever be allowed to have happened in the first

place, and it should certainly not be allowed to continue now, and that is the

cost of running Government House. This year it will cost us, again, $500,000 to

hire a private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor, secretary to the

Lieutenant-Governor, a gardener, a secretary to the assistant deputy, a chef, a

gardener II, a housekeeper, a chauffeur, a seamstress, and four domestic

workers.

What a waste of money, I say to members opposite, and I think

if you talk to most of them privately the people over there would agree with

you. I have nothing against the Lieutenant-Governor, nothing against the

Lieutenant-Governor prior to now. There is nothing wrong with them, good people

performing a function which maybe is very important -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely not, I say to the minister. He

is a Bonavista bayman; he has to be a good man. The shame of it is putting the

Lieutenant-Governor up in this big mansion and the taxpayers of this Province

having to pay for it.

Look at what Alberta is doing, look at what Ontario is doing,

provinces much, much richer who can afford the pomp and pageantry much more than

we can right here in this Province. What does their Lieutenant-Governor do, I

ask the Government House Leader? Where is their Lieutenant-Governor housed? In

his own place, in his own house. The Premier does not have a big mansion. If he

does, he is paying for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes he did, but that is not to say that

we should go back to those days, those dark days. No, we have to move ahead from

that. That is why there is nobody over here who was part of those days. Not one

over here, Mr. Speaker, was part of those dark days. The only people, Mr.

Speaker, from that age, the only people from those days are all on the opposite

side.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: They are all on the opposite side now,

Mr. Speaker, those are the people who remember all those things. I don't know

what happened in the past and I don't want to know. I don't want to be blinded

by it. We have to move ahead and we have to learn from those mistakes and go on.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason whatsoever why the

Lieutenant-Governor in this Province today cannot have a suite of offices here

in Confederation Building, the people's building, Mr. Speaker, and have his own

home. There is no reason why we should be paying for the upkeep and all the pomp

and pageantry, all the gardener I's, gardener II's and the seamstresses down at

Government House. It's terrible. Let's move ahead and let's get on with it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: Let's get on with it, Mr. Speaker, and

let's take an example from the Province of Ontario. Let's take an example from

Alberta. Let's get on with it and if we do need a Lieutenant-Governor then let's

do it in the most economical way possible.

I say to the Government House Leader, that his mentor, Mr.

Speaker, who used to sit to his left there at one time, he did not believe, I

don't think deep down inside, that we should be putting out those kinds either.

The former Premier, your idol the former Premier did not believe we should be

doing that. In fact, when I brought it up here one day - for those of us who

were here before they would know that Mr. Wells and Mr. Roberts almost wanted

this House to be operated and ran like a courtroom. They didn't stand for any

shouting or hollering. It was always kept pretty low key but I remember up

speaking about the Lieutenant-Governor's residence and Mr. Wells looked across

and said: Not a bad idea. He said, we can't get rid of the Lieutenant-Governor

because that has to be done by so many provinces together. That is a federal

thing but there is no reason why we can't do away with the Lieutenant-Governor's

residence. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, if we did that we would leave him

homeless or anything. I am sure we would not. I am sure that we still would not

have any problem in attracting good people to want to be - distinguished people

like we have now -who would still show a great interest in being the

Lieutenant-Governor of this Province and be able to put him in his own home -

MR. FRENCH: Jack said, turn it into a bed and breakfast.

MR. FITZGERALD: It might be a good idea. The Leader of

the New Democratic Party says that part of his election platform is to turn it

into a bed and breakfast. Turn Government House into a bed and breakfast. It's

not a bad idea. The people's house and let everybody have access to it. If you

want a place to put your paintings, if you want a place to put your art, put it

down there. If you want a museum, put it down there. We don't have to go and pay

out millions of dollars to Mr. Frank Ryan because you people thought he was a

Tory and you were Liberal. We can get away from all that, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and we can put our paintings and the

artwork of Newfoundland and Labrador in the people's house.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: I believe I heard the hon. gentleman say that

he would turn it into a bed and breakfast and I say to him, according to the

figures that he read out there, you probably could not make a profit off it and

that shows the Tory mentality when it comes to running business. Surely he would

like to withdraw that you can make it into a bed and breakfast.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Bonavista South but I

remind him that his time is up.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I have lots of things here I

can say on the Budget. I have lots of things I can say here about what is

happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to the Minister of Forest

Resources and Agrifoods, who is trying very hard to be a good minister, he is

trying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods, I have to give him credit. He sat over there in one of the back seats

here the last term, if he got up fast he would have hit his head off the wall, a

forgotten soul, stayed out of the House for one session, if I recall, and when

he came in, Mr. Speaker, he would come in for the Budget and he would come in

for the Throne speech and he would sit like this. He would be looking through

his fingers, Mr. Speaker. He was a forgotten soul. He was mad at the people in

opposition, he was mad at the Leader of the New Democratic Party, he was mad at

his leader, he was mad at Eddie Escobar, he was mad at everybody opposite. He

was a mad man, but then along came Brian - I cannot prase you Graham, you were

the worst minister that was ever hear, I cannot praise you. You are in your

rightful place. You should have occupied the seat that that gentlemen vacated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the member for Windsor-Springdale, I

would also like to remind hon. members in the House that when a member stands on

a point of order procedure is that the member who is speaking takes his seat.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is simple,

for a member to continue pass his allotted time, he has to have leave. He no

longer has leave Mr. Speaker, I withdrawal leave.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but leave has

been withdrawn.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not know that the member for Windsor-Springdale was so

eager to get me on my feet today.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today on a motion of

non-confidence in this government, it is a very easy thing to do. It is a very

easy thing to do. Yes, that is what it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, they do not have non-confidence

motions in certain states, I say to the minister, certain ones do not have them,

so he has got to get a little familiar with the laws of Newfoundland and

Labrador. The laws of the Commonwealth.

MR. TULK: This is the best non-confidence motion ever I

saw in my life.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a tremendous one, tremendous.

MR. TULK: I know the time as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, 1989.

MR. TULK: 1988.

MR. SULLIVAN: 1988, that is it, 1988.

I guess one point you can make, when something is precedent

setting it certainly helps in getting consistence in decisions whether it is in

order or not.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, if it is, it is the first thing that

the minister said that was conscious, I can assure him. Usually his verbiage

compares to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few minutes on why

we lack confidence in this government on health care. We have seen the health

care system in this Province being decimated over the last number of years. We

have seen our Premier, when he was our federal minister, approve the Canada

Health and Social Transfer that last year took $87 million, $87 million it took

out of our provincial transfers. In 1995-96 there was $427 million given to this

Province under established program financing and the Canada Assistance Plan,

$427 million. In 1996-97 both programs combined, we received $340 million, an

$87 million reduction. This year we are receiving under both of these $272

million, another $68 million reduction on top of the $87 million we had, $155

million less money coming into this Province on an annual basis for health and

post-secondary education and social assistance than there were two years ago.

Now that is something that the Premier of this Province as a

fellow minister delivered to us here in this Province on health care and has

caused very serious problems in our health care system and anybody in this

Province, who wants to admit that there are no problems in health care, is

turning a blind eye to the situation and is not being realistic. We have seen it

in Port aux Basques where it is happening right now. We have seen the Codroy

Valley in the Stephenville area, we are seeing it in Corner Brook, the centre of

Newfoundland, all over the Province. Here in the city we have a very serious

problem with health care because we have seen $155 million taken out in the last

two years and then the minister yesterday had the audacity to stand up in this

House and tell us -and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board did so too -

to tell us that over the next three years after this year, we will be getting

$66 million more in the health care. That is simply untrue.

You have indicated that the money, the $66 million we are

going to take in the next three years, we are not going to take that now, we are

going to leave it at the same amount you are getting this year and I ask the

minister, it does not make it new money because we are not into that fiscal year

and it is money you never had and there are other factors that affect the Canada

Health and Social Transfer, as the minister I am sure is very well aware of; it

is now moving as he is well aware from a needs basis when it is lumped together

more into a population base, and because of our declining population and job

opportunities, it is going to be compounded and I will predict - we will know

next year when the Budget is released - I will predict that there will be less

than $272 million in the Canada Health and Social Transfer next year for this

Province, less money that there is this year; we will see next year and if I am

wrong I will be delighted and if I am right, I will indicate that it is the same

basic statement now in line with what the plan was over the last several years.

I am sure the minister is well aware that the plan was to go

down to $230 million, that would be the floor for this Province, $230 million

from $427. Instead of going down to a floor of 230, we certainly hope that the

floor they have set on a national level, and if we look at on a national level

the money that is being put into health care we have $19 billion on a national

level were given for health, post-secondary education and social assistance in

1995-96, that is, $19 billion. Today, this year, we have $12.5 billion, $5.5

billion less and they were supposed to go the next three years, down another

$3.8 billion. We would have been down to $11 billion from $19 billion; I mean,

that is almost 50 per cent cut, almost down to half of what it was and that is

having a tremendous impact on front-line workers here in our Province; it is

having a tremendous impact on people being hired within our health care system;

and I am glad the minister is back here to hear this because it is factual. I

took it from information that the Prime Minister stated and I am sure the Prime

Minister always tells the truth, we know that; cancel free trade, scrap the GST,

create jobs, those are evidence that the Prime Minister is very factual in what

he is doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I would go along with that if he gives leave

to do it out of some of my time, I don't mind that at all, I will be delighted

and I am sure the hon. member would if we wants to get leave of the House, I

will do that.

MR. TULK: Who said that, (inaudible) I don't know about

anybody else but I will certainly give leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I would like to get -

MR. FITZGERALD: Would you give me leave to get another

half-an-hour?

MR. TULK: No, no.

MR. SULLIVAN: So, if the Government House Leader wants to

get unanimous approval for that, I can certainly conclude shortly and have him

use the remainder of my time; I can certainly do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. The Member for Windsor - Springdale

has to be in his seat to be recognized I am sure and he can't withdraw leave

from his position now, kneeling begging mercy.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the transfers to this Province

being reduced by the largest amount in our history. Traditionally we have had

increases because of the growing need in Newfoundland and Labrador to have extra

funding for social assistance. We have had a caseload, a caseload now, including

all family members who are recipients, pushing the high 70,000s, I say to my

colleague there, almost 80,000 people I think in this Province today depending

on social assistance.

There were about 30,000 people, I believe, when this

government took office. Now we have $155 million less than we had two years ago?

The Premier as minister allowed us to change from a system on need to a system

per capita that is going to further decimate this Province. We have 17,000 less

people here in this Province. Many of the people who left weren't necessarily

people on social assistance or seniors. In fact, quite the contrary. Many people

left weren't in those categories. They were people whose unemployment was ready

to run out, who got laid off. People who had been working and had commitments

and couldn't continue to stay here and meet their financial responsibilities.

They had to go to other provinces.

We are finding today a tremendous amount of stress and strain

because there is nobody to stand up and fight for our share here in this

Province. I can't see how the Premier of this Province would allow $200 million

to be taken out of this Province when he was a member of Cabinet without a

squeak, without a word. All we saw him doing was political grandstanding,

hanging fish nets from cranes in New York harbour. While he was there I'm sure

he should have paid heed to the Statue of Liberty, what it stands for, and

constitutional rights and freedoms instead of challenging -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but I would, Mr. Speaker, like the hon.

Government House Leader to allow me to continue there without interruption, as

is the parliamentary rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked for the right

to engage in the debate without interruption.

AN HON. MEMBER: To be heard in silence.

MR. SPEAKER: To be heard in silence.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We have

seen the Premier of our Province preside over $200 million in cuts, and was

talking about rights when he went to New York harbour with his fish net and his

little political ploy. He should have paid heed to the Statue of Liberty and the

rights and freedoms under the Charter that he is now taking from women in this

Province. Women haven't been given the pay equity and now he is going to

challenge it because legal advisors told him to do so.

I asked before, are they the same legal advisors who advised

him on Trans City? If they are the same advisors who advised you on Trans City,

I will say fire the legal advisors. Get new legal advisors. Are they the same

ones who advised you on - represented on the arbitration? Oh, I'm not so sure. I

would advise the Premier, regardless of what your advice is, it is wrong to pay

a different wage to women for work than you would pay to men. Why don't you

admit it and do what is just and right and in line with our Charter of Rights

and Freedoms in the Province? Don't try to hide it off as some other legal

delays and meandering around the issue to buy some time, to try to tie it up in

the courts at millions of more dollars.

We have seen what it has cost us on some of these fiascos

already. Being sued on Atlantic Leasing and a decision being appealed. How many

more hundreds of thousands of dollars are going to be spent in the process?

Trans City, guilty from the start. Ministers in Cabinet circumvented the Public

Tender Act and the highest court in the land ruled they did so. Why didn't you

pay the price early and stop dragging the taxpayers through millions of dollars

in legal fees? Get it over with. Cut your losses when you're wrong. Don't bring

the taxpayers of the Province deeper into debt. That is what you need to do.

When you break the laws of the Province you expect to pay the

price, and government should be no different than anybody else when that

happens, and it should have to deal with it, and I agree with it entirely. You

or me or anybody else should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Just

because governments are spending taxpayers dollars - they aren't their own

dollars. If it was its own dollars it would be running out getting a settlement

in a hurry and trying to negotiate a settlement out of court.

The Justice Minister had the audacity to stand up here in

this House, and when our Justice critic asked questions on Mount Cashel - I

believe it was on a Thursday or Friday, and a settlement was announced on Monday

- said: You don't discuss public settlements on the eve of it going into court.

That is when most settlements are realized. That is the time

most settlements are reached, when it is ready in the court, rather than drag it

through a long and lengthy process. I guess there is justice in the long term.

You can only avoid dealing with something that is just for so long. Eventually

it comes home to roost. I say you admit it, get it dealt with early, take your

knocks on it and move on; admit it. That is the right way to go, the appropriate

way to go.

I can see why the same ministers who sat around tinkering,

trying to manoeuvre around the Public Tender Act, do not want to admit it,

because the same people are there, the same people making decisions here, and

that is wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he should very well yawn about it, I

say to him. He should yawn about it. He should feel guilty about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: When are you going to apologize

(inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to apologize for ever

speaking the truth and giving facts in my life. That I will never do, and I will

never, I say to the minister, in this House make a statement that I do not know

and have information to indicate it is true. I will reveal information that I

know to be true, I can assure you, and I ask the minister...

Not only that, Minister, I will go a step further and tell

you that there is treatment given in other elective surgeries because they can

afford to pay it. Look at the House of Commons in Ottawa. Members of Parliament

can go in and get access to specialists. Members of the forces and the RCMP are

covered, Workers Comp, St. Pierre. All those people can get shorter periods of

time waiting for tests in this Province than others because the system pays for

the rest. Ask any medical practitioner out there today. They will tell you those

things. You look at the waiting time. It has a lot to do with non-confidence in

you and the rest of the ministers here in government. It has everything to do

with it, I say to the member. It has everything to do with it.

MR. GRIMES: I will tell you one thing, there is no

confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, Minister, don't you worry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to Pontius Pilate (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the man who stood up on the steps of

Confederation Building and wept because Brian Peckford was crucifying teachers

and it was unjust, the same person got elected and went out and crucified these

people, the same guy who sharpened up his skates before they went to Central

Newfoundland so he could skate around the issues out there again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: When he decides to face them, when he

decides to show up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He has a little more intelligence than

others, or maybe none at all. At least he went out to face the music. I give the

minister some credit. He went out to face the music. Most run away from it. Most

hide from it. Most don't admit it.

The Minister of Health said: We don't have a problem with

health care. We have more dollars in the health care than ever before. What do

we have in the health care? We have $11 million less in acute care and long-term

care institutions than we had last year. Along with the inflationary costs, that

equates in the tens of millions of dollars less for health care than we had last

year - tens of millions, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? What was that?

MR. SULLIVAN: You should be listening. He hasn't changed

since he was a student in school. He still does not listen very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you probably were.

AN HON. MEMBER: All you have to do is ask the students.

MR. SULLIVAN: You probably were. Ask the students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. My prime role was teaching,

and I will stand on my record. I say, ask my students too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am not going to reflect at all on the

teaching ability of the Member for Twillingate and Fogo. That is not for me to

judge. That is for other people to judge. I wasn't a witness to it. He could be

the greatest one in the Province, or he could be the worst.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Health, his

answer, he gave a chronology of the growth of Newfoundland and Labrador in

answer to a question. I've only seen one minister who could give a longer

nonsensical answer than him and that is the Minister of Education. In fact, I

heard he is now giving briefing sessions to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation because she almost outdid him in answers to questions yesterday.

Took thirty seconds to ask and had to be stopped after five minutes. He must be

offering seminars. Was that a part of the seminar, I say to the minister, when

the consultants came down from Toronto back a couple of months ago to teach you

how to manufacture news? Did they teach you how long -

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't know, I never saw them.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did they also - oh, that's right, you were

on vacation, you missed it. You said it. In fact, I listened to - last week as I

was driving back to my house I heard comparing suntans that people have here in

the House. I heard on the news -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I don't know who won it. It did state,

without a doubt, the Minister of Health clearly is the winner. In fact, I might

add, he is so tanned you can easily tell when he is down a quart. Now that's how

good....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, certainly. It is unfortunate, though,

that the rest of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador don't get to look the

part. When you are forty, fifty and sixty days in hospital waiting for bypass

surgery and waiting to get medical treatment it is very difficult to do anything

for your suntan, I can tell you. We have seen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How did you manage? We had a healthier

generation of people, I say. They were employed, they were working. They went to

work in the morning, they came home in the evening. Their mental health was

better, their physical health was better. There were over 200,000 jobs in 1989

in this Province. Now there are only 180,000-some. The jobs, the premier that

got elected to bring the people back home, every mother's son, sent them away,.

Then along came the next premier and he sent thousands away in this past year.

There was never a greater exodus of people out of this Province than in the last

couple of years. That is what is wrong. People can't stay as healthy, mentally

or physically, when they haven't a job to go to, when unemployment -

A very sensible question today by the critic for employment

and training. He asked the Minister of Education: What is this government doing

to compare the jobs that are out in the offshore with the skills that are there?

If there is a shortage of skills, it is our Province's responsibility to see

that the training programs are available, and encourage them for our people here

in our Province to have those skills so they can get jobs. It is fortunate in

some areas, and I'm delighted, that many young people obtained some skills in

Western Canada recently and they are now landing jobs here in the offshore. That

is good to see opportunities here, but we need more opportunities. We need to be

prepared. We weren't with Hibernia. We lost too many skilled jobs to other

people. We need to have the job skills here in this Province. It hasn't happened

here. Government hasn't taken it seriously and it hasn't done its utmost to look

out for the people here in this Province, and that is very unfortunate.

Particularly in health, the longer waiting lists of people

trying to see specialists are unbelievable. The minister tells us we have the

best in Canada. That is simply not true. We do not have the best in Canada. We

have very long waiting lists. We have physicians and people stressed out from

overwork. There aren't sufficient dollars put into health care, and a certain

percentage of what is in there is not used efficiently.

I asked the minister over a year ago in this House, and two

weeks ago he came up with the solution, there is enough money in the system, he

said. I asked: What are you going to do? He said: We are spending so much on

locals we could reallocate this and use it. Over a year ago in this House, on

the public record of this House, I asked the minister: Why are you spending $550

a day plus transportation costs plus food plus hotel costs and all other costs

for locum physicians when you should be paying the ones you have, a higher

salary. You should be paying a higher income to the ones you have instead of

down to sixty.

I understand now, it could be up an extra $15,000 - $20,000,

the base level for physicians. That is a step that could keep people here. That

is positive and I applaud that. I say to the minister, I do agree with that. I

said to you in the House over a year ago, I asked you in Question Period, why

are you paying - if you remember the question - $5.50 a day, transportation, put

food in their fridge and accommodations when we could be paying the ones in the

area more? We would have a larger number. We would have more support there,

specialists and it is a big factor for physicians today. They feel they are out

there alone and they don't have the support and the specialists back up there.

That is frustrating to a doctor, not to be able to get a patient to a specialist

and to have an early intervention. That could save us a lot of dollars in the

long term. Granted, I don't know the exact number that could be utilized in the

system locally but I do know it was significant. I did raise it and I am

delighted there was a response. It's a year late but it happened. It is still

better than two years late but it is not as good as happening early. The

minister and his department should be monitoring those things. They should know

what is happening there.

The minister made a statement today. He said: I am not aware

of what services are out there for seniors. Well I would say, as Minister of

Health, you should know. You said I don't know all the groups -

MR. MATTHEWS: I didn't say that. I said I can't

(inaudible) remembering all the programs that are in place.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I say you should know all the programs

that are in place to help seniors in this Province. As the Minister of Health

you should know.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am only a genius, I am not perfect.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I know. A genius would be a good start.

If you were a genius our health care system would be in a lot better shape than

it is today, I say to the minister. Did you say a genie or a genius?

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am married to a genie, Jeanie.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, God help Jeanie, I say. I will say a

prayer for her, that is what I would say. I will say a prayer. Yes, I hope she

gets better treatment than the people in our health care system in this

Province. If not, you will need a good divorce lawyer soon.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's it, I have an idea.

MR. TULK: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: I just spoke to the Opposition House Leader and

this afternoon I was supposed to table the annual report of Newfoundland Farm

Products for 1995-96. It was distributed to the press and I wonder if I could

revert back to Presenting Reports?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I will just table it right now if you want

me to. I would like to table the annual report for 1995 of Newfoundland Farm

Products Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there any objections to us reverting

back to the area on the Order Paper for tabling of reports?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TULK: Done.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure I appreciate the Government House

Leader for those two minutes. I know it is important that we get every possible

suggestion and advice to this government on the record because they certainly

need every couple of minutes they can get.

I took a look at the federal budget on health care and it is

interesting to note that the federal government released a budget -can you

imagine - released a budget two months ago in which they said - and I have it

here in front of me - there were $19 billion spent just two years ago in Canada

Health and Social Transfers. Today, $12.5 billion and they projected for

1998-99, that that figure is going to drop down to $11.8 billion and then down

to $11.1 billion in the Year 2000. That is under the Canada Health and Social

Transfer, I say to the Minister of Health. Now that is the federal budget. An

announcement by Mr. Chrtien, our Prime Minister, was that we are not going to

take those other billions - in other words, what we are getting in Canada today

is $12.5 billion for Canada Health and Social Transfer. This Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished and then I will

answer. You listen and in two minutes I will answer.

We are getting $12.5 billion today in Canada under the CHST.

This Province gets $272 million of that. Next year, the country would get less,

it would get down to $11.8 billion and then down to $11.1 billion by the year

2000. We were supposed to go from $272 million down to $230 million and that

would be the floor, so instead of telling us now, over the next three years, we

are going to go down there, the minister talks about the new $66 million - in

other words, the announcement stated - I read it carefully and read it from the

national perspective - that we are not going to take another $66 million over

three years, we are still going to take the $155 million we took for the last

two years, we are going to keep taking that each of the following years. So we

are $155 million less today in Canada Health and Social Transfer than we were

two years ago and next year, it would have gone from $427 million to $230

million, $197 million we would be down so we said we are not going to take that

extra little bit now, that extra,little, that small bit that is there, we won't

take it, and that is basically what they are saying.

The minister stood in this House and told us - and the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - that we have $66 million extra in

health care, we will be able to do things with this when there is no money. It

is the same amount we have this year. You are not doing it now, you were going

to have $66 million less, what would you do with that? Now, you are going to

have the same amount next year and I will predict - and I said it to the

Minister of Education, that this time next year, the Canada Health and Social

Transfer, under a federal Liberal government would be less because the Premier,

when he was a federal minister, allowed it to move from the system that is based

on need, 50-50 cap used to be funded, it was based on need to one that is now

population based to a greater extent, and since our population has been

declining, I am predicting the $272 million - there will be less in health care

when this minister or whomever is the finance minister tables a Budget here next

spring, and we will see, the future will indicate that. I hope it is more, that

the federal government is not going to do any more downloading on this Province

and the minister knows full-well the brunt - what we could do with $155 million

more dollars in health, post-secondary education and social services. We could

do a lot.

Right now, with a social service workload not projected to

decrease and this very government has produced a document here that they are

telling us that employment is going to decline by 3,600 jobs in this Province

over this fiscal year, that we are going to have an unemployment rate that will

go up by 1.1 per cent in this document he filed on Budget Day, The Economy .

That tells me that social assistance caseloads will increase, that there will be

greater demands on our population because there is an aging population in this

Province.

There was a very interesting point today. My colleague, the

Opposition House Leader mentioned a very interesting point, that we are spending

a very large per cent of our dollars in health care on the upper end of the

population. I say to the minister, it is the upper end of the population that

has put a lot of dollars into health care. In the last twenty years of someone's

life, there is a huge chunk -

AN HON. MEMBER: Two-and-a-half time (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right and down at the early

years you spend more than in the middle years - and what he asked today is an

avenue that a healthier population, especially seniors in their mobility, their

proper dietary habits, cut down on the onset of disease and it is not as

prolonged, their recovery is quicker and saves tremendous dollars in our health

care system by ensuring that people have proper nutrition. We know what it is

like with young people, young kids, malnutrition, people in families who do not

have the same incomes have a higher level of illness and a higher cost to the

system and we need to address this critical concern that one-quarter of the

seniors in our Province today are suffering problems from lack of nutrition that

is going to equate into very significant medical costs, on top of what would be

a normal medical cost. That is because their incomes have not increased in line

with inflation and other clawbacks in our system, we have less disposable income

in our Province today and that is what is happening.

We have a tremendous amount of concerns and problems in the

Province and we need solutions. I have said to the minister on many occasions

and have offered suggestions and solutions in lots of areas. If I stand up and

criticize, I should be able to have a solution or something that would work, and

I have said it. I will deal with the cardiac surgery one for a moment, and what

I have said.

MR. MATTHEWS: You would not admit that you are wrong,

though.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am waiting for the admission. I have

not been wrong yet, I say to the minister.

Three-and-a-half years ago, I raised the issue. In the summer

of 1993, as health critic, I raised this issue on waiting lists in cardiac

surgery and it was raised in a public statement. People do not get their facts

from the subordinates, I can tell you.

MR. MATTHEWS: We are not talking about subordinates, we

are talking about (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are things being kept from people at

the top in the system, and do not worry, people's cages will get rattled when

the time comes. Let me tell you, people will know.

MR. MATTHEWS: People will (inaudible) because you are not

big enough to admit that you were wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, I would rattle the

minister's cage if I gave him some of my sources, and rattle Sister Davis' and

so on.

There are a lot of people in the system suffering a lot of

stress and I say to the minister, what we need to do is have a separate cardiac

unit there, one that is devoted solely to cardiac care. The minister realizes

that.

Minister, last year, we averaged nine procedures under

cardiac surgery a week, last year, the Province, I speak about us, the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said `we'.

MR. SULLIVAN: `We' - yes, I feel a part of the Province.

One week last month there were three done. I mean, because

there is no separate unit - and the minister told us, we have to wait two years,

that is what he said, on public record, two years, before we can solve it. I

visited four people in the hospital yesterday, three rooms next to each other,

from my own area. Three people had to wait -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) your hands (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is better than the minister who has his

hands in everybody's pocket in the Province, that is what he is doing. His hands

are in everybody else's pocket - his foot in his mouth and his hands in

everybody else's pocket. That is what is wrong with the minister. He should put

his feet on the ground and he should put his hands on his head, because he is

daydreaming. That is what I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and there is nothing that looks as bad

as a person sitting down with his foot in his mouth, I say to the minister. I do

not know whether it is a small foot or a big mouth, I am not sure. I have not

come to that determination yet, but maybe we will. I ask the minister, I will

have to investigate, because I am sure there is a cure. I hope there is a cure,

I say to the minister, I am not sure, but I hope. Some diseases are terminal.

Thank God, most of them can be cured or treated, at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the minister is a symptom of a major

disease we have here in this Province - a lack of listening, a lack of

consultation, a lack of concern for the people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, well, I just happen to be different

from the minister, just happen to be a little bit different.

I have not even got away from health care. I want to talk

about education, out-migration. I want to talk about the economy of the Province

and so on. But the Minister of Health has done such a tremendous job of letting

the health care system of our Province deteriorate, I had to devote my entire

comments here to the Minister of Health.

There are 17,000 fewer people that the minister has to look

after now than there were in 1991 - 17,000 fewer on health care. But actually

they are the people that less a percentage of our money goes on health care. It

is the upper and lower end of the scale, tremendous. We have had this exodus of

people from our Province. And the Premier stated: Oh, my, 17,000. What impact is

it going to have on our budget? And he was asked by my colleague, the Member for

Kilbride, and he said: Well, we factored that in, we made allowance for

declining population. And then, in public, he said: It is going to have an

impact. He said the next day: We allowed for it in the House. And out in public,

he said: We did not allow for this impact. Who is he trying to kid? Does the

minister know what he does in his budget or does he not know? He does not even

know. Then, all of a sudden, he tries to put a spin on an announcement yesterday

that tells us: We are not going to take the extra $66 million we were going to

take in the next three years, we are only going to take the $155 million we took

in the last two years. Then they stand up - not only the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board stood up and talked about the great news, but the Minister of

Health got up after him and talked about the same thing, $66 million.

Then he tried to tell us in his statement: Oh, we never said

that. But he certainly did. I have it here somewhere, I say to the minister. He

stated: There is an extra $66 million that we now have to be able to spend and

decide how we are going to use it. But first of all, it is not just for health

care, it is for post-secondary education and social services.

Here is what he stated: "The extra $66 million" - now, how

many can read this to say that it is to keep up from getting cut, that it is

extra money? He said, and here I will read it, and there is only one way you can

interpret this: "The extra $66 million it will mean for this Province from

1998-1999 to 2000-2001 is significant and is evidence of the Federal

Government's understanding of the need for more funding in the areas of health,

education and social services." They understand the need for more funding? When

they are still going to take the $155 million next year that they have taken the

last two. Understanding of a need. Who in this Province is not aware that the

nurses and the front-line workers are being stressed to the maximum? Sick leave

has increased because of the stress and strain. There is more productivity lost

because of the extra pressures and strain put on people.

A few years ago in our hospitals when you had twenty people

in hospital, maybe only half of them might have had a fairly acute illness. The

nature of the disease was not as acute as it is now. People today are sick when

they are in hospital, or they need medication. They need service or they need

surgery. That has not been the case in the past, where often people came into

hospital a week before surgery and remained for weeks after. Today, you are in

and you are out, almost a revolving door, so each case is more acute, more

serious, and needs more intensive care than they did years ago, and you are only

given the same number of front-line people or fewer, to deal with all these

cases.

Anybody who visits, anybody who has family, anybody who talks

to people around the Province, knows that that is the case, and the only ones

who do not seem to know it are the Premier and the minister. They do not seem to

know there is a problem out there today. It needs to be addressed before it gets

too serious. My greatest concern with physicians in this Province is that we

have dug such a big hole now and we have got so far behind the other Atlantic

Provinces that it is very difficult to get enough dirt under our feet to be able

to rise out of that hole. Because that is what has happened now. We have dug a

hole that is going to be difficult now to catch up. Because other provinces are

moving forward, too. We need a quick solution.

We do not need weeks of forums to tell us. The minister

should know today what the concerns in health care are. He should know where

dollars need to be spent. The Premier has met with nurses. I know they met with

medical associations. They have met with other professionals. They have heard it

from people in numerous areas through department contact. Anybody who does not

know where the problems are now, is not listening. Because people do know where

they are. There were submissions made to the pre-Budget consultation process by

heads of health care organizations here in the Province. They told them: Do not

take any more funding, we need it. They just do not listen.

After an election is called, they jump up and try to tell us

they are giving you more money, when all they are doing is not taking another

$66 million. Still, the $155 million a year that is gone now is still gone. It

is going to be gone next year and the year after under the current proposal,

under the current announcement by the Prime Minister yesterday. Now, that is not

acceptable, I say. It is not acceptable here in this Province when there are too

many people hurting and in need.

Education is an area where people have been abandoned on

appointed boards accountable to the minister. They are accountable to the

Minister of Education and Training, appointed by the minister, and they are not

accountable to the people who are served in these areas. I feel, if you are

going to make drastic changes that are going to affect designations and schools

in communities, it should be done by people who have a chance to have input into

what is happening, people who are elected by the people, who are accountable to

the people and will make the best decisions.

Many of the decisions they make could be good decisions.

Maybe some decisions are bad. We all make mistakes, but when there is an

opportunity for public input, to put all sides of the argument forth, to lay it

on the people who are elected to represent the people, the best decisions can be

made. Maybe it is part of government's strategy to have their own appointees

rather than elect them, so they can control or have it agree, what they call

arm's length, but more manipulation of the system because this government

created a lot of those problems in the beginning. They did not see the need to

allow us, as members of the Legislature, to debate the question that was put to

the people. They shut down this House; then they closed schools in June; then

they announced the wording; then they voted before it was open. Nobody was

allowed... They had the right wording. It was perfect.

We said from day one that we had concerns that it could

deliver what the people thought they were going to get. Now we are seeing in the

system today people who are unhappy all over the Province, and it is not

denominational in many of these areas. It is not a matter of designation in many

of these schools at all. A lot of these people do not care whether it is

uni-denominational or interdenominational. They feel if the numbers warrant and

justify it, there should be schools in their area. There are many areas in this

Province today, from the Port aux Basques - Cape Ray area right up through. We

are seeing Codroy Valley into Stephenville there are problems. I think, in Port

au Port, Central Newfoundland we have seen it. In Grand Falls - Windsor, the

Northern Peninsula, Englee, the same situation, Brownsdale, Brigus, you name it,

all over the place in this Province there are concerns, many legitimate

concerns, that need to be studied. They need someone to listen to them, to be

able to present their suggestions that would justify having schools in their

areas without affecting the viability of other schools and could end up saving

dollars in the long term, and better facilities, in many cases that are not

going to need the same capital expenditure in the future to be able to maintain

those and make them functional and continue to be functional for years to come.

Those are the types of decisions and the kind of input on

which the public deserves to have a chance, and they have not had that

opportunity in many instances. Some have let them voice their concerns in many

areas, just like any committee and organization in the Province. School boards

are no different. Many people get appointed. Some take a very active interest

and get heavily involved. Others are just casual members of the board who do not

really desire to get heavily involved in the decision-making process; just like

any organization or group that happens there, and people do not see the same

obligation. If you are elected by the people to do a job, you have a

responsibility and a commitment and accountability. When you are appointed by

the minister, you are only accountable to the minister or the person who

appoints you. No reflection on individuals who serve; there are some tremendous

individuals on those boards who make decisions that they think are best. Others

have not had access to the information to make appropriate decisions, in many

instances, and it is incumbent upon the minister to ensure that the best

decisions are made in the interest of the students of the Province.

It is not down, I can tell you, to a matter of whether it is

uni-denominational or interdenominational in many, many cases. Many people in

parts of this Province could not care less. There was not a very high vote even