June 2, 1998 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 37

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to take a few moments to remind hon. members that this is

National Transportation Week across Canada. The theme for Transportation Week

1998, `Transportation - Canada's Natural Resource', reflects the importance of

transportation infrastructure to our nation's economy and economic growth and

development.

Just prior to the start of Transportation Week, I had the opportunity to meet

with my federal and provincial counterparts to discuss various items of concern.

One of the key agenda items was the establishment of a national highway policy.

The proposed national highway policy identifies the need for federal/provincial

partnerships to work towards developing a transportation infrastructure which

supports commerce and trade activity throughout Canada.

I am pleased to report that discussions on the establishment of a national

highway policy were very productive. All ministers endorsed, in principle, the

establishment of a broad investment strategy for our highways. Mr. Speaker, all

ministers agreed to meet later this year to further pursue this initiative,

following a final report on the state, condition and investment needs of the

national highway system.

The ministers also discussed safety standards, the need to harmonize

regulations governing various aspects of the trucking industry, and the

development of a transportation component of a national climate change strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the transportation network of highways in Newfoundland and

Labrador is an essential part of this Province's past, present and future

economic growth and development. This year we are seeing just how important this

transportation infrastructure is to the Province. In this fiscal year, Mr.

Speaker, more than $108 million in road construction projects will be tendered,

the largest ever road construction program in the history of the Province. As of

today, Mr. Speaker, we have awarded contracts for thirty-eight projects with a

dollar value of more than $66 million. This translates into about 660 direct

jobs and 462 indirect jobs. Investment in roads also results in decreased travel

times and lower maintenance costs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the

House sat.

I want to read two sentences, Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to report that

discussions on the establishment of a national highway policy were very

productive. All ministers endorsed, in principle, the establishment of a broad

investment strategy for our highways. Mr. Speaker, all ministers agreed to meet

later this year to further pursue this initiative...

A statement for the sake of a statement; the minister is desperate for media

attention. Maybe he should trade places with Jim Furlong and start (inaudible)

`a little good news'.

The minister talks about 660 jobs, seasonal jobs. I say to the minister:

Where are the permanent jobs that this Province needs to stop the out-migration?

Let us do something about the permanent jobs, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to update Members of the House of Assembly

on the activities of one of the strategic initiatives undertaken by the

Department of Development and Rural Renewal. The Newfoundland and Labrador Film

Development Corporation was incorporated in January, 1997, to spearhead

development of the local film and video industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) good news.

MR. TULK: I must say that the Minister of Mines and Energy at that time,

I believe, was the minister of that department. I like to give credit where

credit is due.

The intent is to diversify the economic base of the Province and generate

long-term employment benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speak, the film and video industry clearly offers significant economic

and employment possibilities for the people of this Province. Film and

television productions are labour intensive, with approximately 60 per cent of a

project's budget being spent in salaries and fees for workers.

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development

Corporation is: to support, assist and develop the growth of the private sector

film and video industry using sound business principles in the areas of funding,

marketing, promotion and infrastructure development; and, secondly, to promote

the Province within the worldwide film and video industry as a location for

film, video, television and commercial productions.

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways the provincial government is supporting the

activities of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation is by

introducing a telefilm tax credit. The tax credit will be an important tool in

attracting investment to this sector, targeted by the government as an economic

and employment growth opportunity. In Nova Scotia a similar program helped

increase the size of the industry in that province from $15 million to $50

million in just two years. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has tabled

enabling legislation on this tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, the Corporation has been active in promoting the Province in the

telefilm industry. The Corporation has coordinated scouting visits by senior

officials of various companies in the industry. The Corporation participated in

Location '97 and Location '98 in Los Angeles as well as several other industry

gatherings and trade shows.

Mr. Speaker, a good example of the kind of productions being attracted to

this province is a joint Canada-Norway movie project tentatively entitled

"Misery Harbour". The story is based on the novels of Danish/Norwegian writer

Axel Sandemose, and portrays the adventures of a teenage boy in the early 1900s

who boards a schooner in Oslo, and sets sail for Newfoundland where he jumps

ship. This is a bedtime story for you. Shooting for the production will take

place in Scandinavia -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - Tilting on Fogo Island, Gander, and St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, there are other examples I could elaborate on such as The Devine

Ryans, Dooley Gardens, or Extraordinary visitor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Excellent.

MR. TULK: When are you going make a statement yourself.

Mr. Speaker, in fiscal 1995/96 and 1996/97, five productions occurred in the

province which resulted in total project expenditures of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - of $3.3 million in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fiscal 1997/98, the first year of the Corporation's mandate, there were 22

projects completely or partially produced in Newfoundland and Labrador with

total production expenditures of $9.7 million in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, early indications are encouraging for this coming year as well.

In the first two months of fiscal 1998/99, four productions have been confirmed

with total project revenues of almost $7 million. Eight additional

projects are also under development, which if pursued, could bring total

production costs up to $16 million for this year. And we are just three months

into this fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, at this rate, total industry investment associated with

Newfoundland and Labrador for fiscal 1998/99 will far exceed previous years.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we are on the right track in growing this relatively new

industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all going to be in Misery Harbour, boy.

MR. TULK: We will all be in Misery Harbour, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the

minister for a copy of his statement today.

As I read through it and listen to the minister speak about it, Mr. Speaker,

there is no doubt about the film industry and what it can produce in this part

of the world, especially with the unique settings we have around this Province.

We have seen some things in the past, Mr. Speaker, The Rowdy Man , A

Whale for the killing and so on. We can name some more in Petty Harbour and

those areas of the Province. There is no doubt that there is potential for

growth. Misery Harbour , the newest film about to come to the Province,

has potential also.

The tax credit that he talks about, we assume that will be a step in the

right direction. I want to see more specifics on that, Mr. Speaker. When it

comes to the film industry, there will be no shortage of actors in this Province

to partake in the film industry. I am sure as they go around this beautiful

Province of ours they will find good settings, and I am sure if we get one in it

will be a catalyst for other films that may come to the Province, Mr. Speaker.

So we look forward to seeing more films develop in this Province over the summer

months and into the next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave?

MR. EFFORD: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. The hon. member does not have leave.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. On

July 17, 1993, your department imposed a 50 per cent cap on doctors' fees in the

St. John's area and over the next ten months it was extended to other centres

here in the Province, by May 16, 1994. In fact, in December, 1994 your

department received the final report and the long term committee recommendations

by PRAG, that's the Physicians Resource Advisory Group.

I ask the minister: Why, after five years, have you done nothing to address

this policy?

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

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

Since I have been minister, just a little over a year, the member opposite

would know that I have gone public and said that I do believe in the lifting of

the 50 per cent rule, not only for St. John's, but in fact that it not be

applied to the other parts of the Province where in fact it can be applied in

some regions. However, I have also said and I have been consistent about this,

Mr. Speaker, that this is something that needs to be resolved at the bargaining

table, and it is currently at the bargaining table. If the member has done the

research he will know that the physicians are still at the bargaining table and

they are meeting again, if I understand correctly, this week.

So that issue is resolved because it involves not only the lifting of the

rule, but as I have said many times publicly, it also involves other services

around that issue. For example, the provision of services to long term care

facilities and keeping our emergency room staff, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have done my research. I think the minister should do hers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Back on November 15, 1994 the Chair of that committee wrote

the deputy minister of the department, the co-Chair of the Joint Management

Committee; and the recommendations are in that report, Minister. I would ask you

to go back and read them. It is backdated November 25, 1994.

Now your department hoped that limiting doctors in urban areas of this

Province would address the rural shortage of doctors, so we will have more

doctors to fill those positions out in rural areas of the Province.

On May 19, 1994 I raised that fear, that this disincentive you are putting on

- and it's in Hansard, May 19, 1994, if you want to refer to it, and the

minister's response - will have the opposite affect to which it is intended. I

might say to the minister, the results since that speak for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that there are now more unfilled positions in rural

Newfoundland today than there were then, I ask the minister: Will you now

finally do the correct thing, will you lift that cap, and will you stop driving

young, new, highly trained Newfoundland doctors out of this Province?

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

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

The issue of physician resource management is an issue of concern for

physicians right across this Province, and governments and boards right across

this country. Mr. Speaker, we are working with the physicians to try to find a

solution to this. As I have said previously, it is an issue that is being

discussed at the bargaining table as we speak. We have asked that that try to be

resolved in that forum.

Mr. Speaker, if the member did his research, he would also know that at the

time government did put forward the 50 per cent rule it was in response to a

request from the Medical Association, which at the time believed there would be

serious out-migration from Ontario to Newfoundland, and many feared for their

positions. The situation has certainly changed since then, and that is why we

are working with the physicians, not through the media, not through the

grandstanding, but through the proper forum to try to address those issues.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister what she is saying now. Are you saying that

the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association doesn't support these

recommendations that were laid out there and that they don't want the cap

lifted? Could the minister clarify that for me?

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

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

Had the member been listening when I answered his question he would have

heard "at the time," at that particular time. I also went on to say the

situation has since changed and we are all very much aware of it. We also know,

Mr. Speaker, that the issue was around at that particular time, dealing with the

situation in the St. John's and St. John's surrounding areas. That was one of

the main reasons why, in fact, that rule was put in place, although it does

apply to the whole Province if, in fact, the oversupply issue is raised.

That was the point I made, that at the time it was done at the request of the

NLMA. Since then, and I state it again for the third time, the situation has

changed. We are very much aware of it. The NLMA are aware of it and they have

asked us to address it, and we are doing that under the auspices of collective

bargaining through negotiations as we speak, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have to put this in perspective. On July 17 of 1993 the physicians, the

Medical Association, agreed because they were told it would be for a six-month

period until a long-term solution could be worked out, Minister. That was five

years ago. In the report that followed, within a year of that specific cap, it

laid out exactly where they stand on this issue, and that went to your

department, by physicians, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now will you now clarify for me when you were notified,

when your department was notified, that the Medical Association no longer

supports a cap?

It is my understanding, Minister, it was only the six-month period from July

of 1993 until the final report came down. If it is any different, I would like

the minister to tell us here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am giving no other impression but the

truth and that might be difficult for some to accept. That is the impression I

give because those are the facts from which I am speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I have said on the last two occasions on which I have stood to

answer the same question that we are aware of the problem, the physicians are

aware of the problem, the boards are aware of the problem; but, Mr. Speaker,

unlike some people, we try to use the proper forum and within the proper realm

of context, which in this case is collective bargaining through negotiations.

Now I know the member opposite would like to grandstand and go through the

media, or do whatever he can to get his picture in the paper. Mr. Speaker, this

is too important. It is not about just lifting the rule, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I cannot make those decisions off the cuff. I will say that I

will work with the physicians and the boards because we are looking at providing

a full range of services.

On one hand, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite wants to have everything out in

rural Newfoundland that we possibly can, and I totally agree with that, but we

need to be responsible. We cannot agree with everything we hear until we look at

the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this rule applies to all areas of the

Province although it is currently imposed only in the St. John's area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have to act responsibly. We have to get

all of the information and we have to use the proper forum; and that forum, for

the fifth time, Mr. Speaker, is collective bargaining at the negotiating table.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister has missed the boat. I am talking

about the cap in St. John's. My questions are not on that. The 50 per cent cap,

Minister, has created a whole new set of problems here in St. John's. Today, due

to practising doctors in St. John's retiring -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Minister, in light of the fact that

this cap has created problems in St. John's, and in your own district, on July

24, a practice with five doctors will be closing, others have closed, and people

cannot have access to the care they need right here in the City of St. John's

because of your policy, I ask the minister: What are you going to do to ensure

that sick people here in this city can have normal, appropriate access to

medical services that they are being denied now because of closing practices,

and doctors retiring and leaving the Province, because of this cap that has

brought on this whole new set of problems?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-i-o-n-s, negotiations. That

is where it is being addressed, that is where it is being discussed, and that is

how it will be handled, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just recently a doctor passed away, leaving many of his patients looking for

a family doctor. Five doctors are now going to be vacating Ropewalk Lane in the

St. John's Centre district, and I am receiving numerous complaints from elderly

people who cannot have adequate access to a family doctor.

Minister, I am simply asking you: What are you going to do to address this

problem that you created on July 17, 1993 by this government?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to state that when this physician passed

away - and I acknowledge the type of work that this physician has done - he had

a very large, elderly practice. He was a physician, Mr. Speaker, who provided

house calls and that is something that is very difficult to replicate today

because many physicians do not provide that service. Those patients have been

calling my office and we have been giving them names of physicians who are still

accepting clients and patients onto their roster, Mr. Speaker. That list has

been put in place and updated. We are answering the calls as they come in, Mr.

Speaker.

I will say it again: This issue is being dealt with through the negotiation

process. We are as anxious as everybody else to try to do it. Mr. Speaker, this

round of negotiations -

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't believe that for a moment.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, the Health

critic, may not believe it but truth is an interesting component of a question.

The reality is, and the truth is, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: However, the truth is, that is an issue that is on the

bargaining table. Maybe he would like to ask the people at the table what they

are discussing if it is not an issue; because I will tell him, for what it is

worth in his books, it is a topic at the negotiations of the physicians that are

currently under way. That is the forum in which they discuss that issue along

with salary, along with coverage, along with clustering models - a whole

different array of issues - and that is where it is being dealt with.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are for the Minister of

Health and Community Services and they are in my capacity as Status of Women

critic.

One of the most common and debilitating diseases among women in this Province

is arthritis. It causes great pain and great disability, but fortunately the

diseases are now treatable and its progression can be halted or prevented

through new clinically proven medications.

A physician treating arthritis called an Open Line program this morning to

express her outrage that this drug, like the drugs for multiple sclerosis, is

not covered by the Province despite its proven role in preventative medicine and

pain control.

Will the minister explain why she has chosen to deny many of this Province's

women a drug that has been proven to ease their suffering and halt the

progression of this debilitating and costly disease?

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

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

I did not have an opportunity to hear Open Line today to hear the components

around the question but what I will say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I had other things.

What I will say is that, as I answered yesterday, when the federal government

approve drugs, they approve drugs on the basis that any drug is better than a

placebo. They do not compare drugs and do comparative analysis based on other

similar types of drugs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this only adds credibility to the whole component

of what was raised yesterday. The Member for St. John's West raised an issue

about arthritis; the Member for Ferryland raised an issue about a drug for

multiple sclerosis; and perhaps other people should stand and raise questions

about new drugs for schizothymia, new drugs for diabetes, new drugs for cancer,

Mr. Speaker.

It is about choice, and it is easy to be in the Opposition and say, pay for

it all. You know, Mr. Speaker, if we had the money we would love to pay for all

of it and more besides. But we have to factor in the information we have, make

the choices that we have to make based on the financial needs and all the other

clinical symptomatology, and that is how we are making our decisions on that,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the minister, we will never get a cure if we take

that attitude.

Now yesterday in this House you said: We rely on the experts for our

information and stand by the recommendations that they will make to us.

Now this doctor who was on this morning is an expert in her field. She is

outraged. What prompted her call to the Open Line program was the response on

multiple sclerosis. She was drawing a parallel to the drug for osteoarthritis.

She said that she had tried to get an interview with the Minister and the Deputy

Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: When will the minister start getting with the times and

admit that there is a two-tiered health system: one for the people with private

medical insurance and one for those who do not have, which includes a large

number of our senior women?

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

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

I do not profess to be an expert on arthritis but I do know that the drugs

are not a cure - and I think the member needs to be aware, it is not a cure - it

is a treatment. There are hundreds of treatments, and perhaps the best treatment

is prevention. I know that is only a part of the issue, but I will say that

again we have $50 million that we provide in our drug program. If you are

considering a two-tiered system there is an option of providing no drugs, I

guess, or eliminating a whole lot of other programs to do nothing but provide

drugs.

The list goes on. We are supposed to do extensive expansion of all the types

of services in the Province, we are supposed to enhance all the professionals,

we are supposed to increase the numbers of all professionals, we are supposed to

add all the new drugs. At some point someone has to be a bit responsible and

look at all of the issues that are out there and make the choices. The choices

are not easy. It is easy if you are on the other side because you can say: Do

everything. However, we have to live within a budget, and a $50 million budget,

I will add.

We do provide a lot of drug coverage to the people of this Province; but as

the member said, yesterday it was Betaseron, today it is the drugs for

arthritis. What about the drugs that we are also looking at for diabetes? What

about those? Is there anyone there who would support those drugs? What about the

drugs for cancer? What about the schizophrenia drugs that are just new on the

market?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I ask the question. It is about choices, and it is about

decisions, and it is about the financial -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to finish her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - ability that we have to pay, Mr. Speaker, for those

services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: We are talking here about a group of people who are not

politically powerful and largely marginalized.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Open line is not the clinic. Open line is because she

could not get an interview with the minister or deputy minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: I ask the minister: Does she remember speaking at a forum

new emphasis on preventative medicine? Why is it, when she gets an opportunity

to put her money where her mouth is and help prevent costly, debilitating

diseases on our most vulnerable women, the minister, on whose shoulders these

decisions rest, chooses instead to close the door in their face?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: One question is: Does the minister remember speaking at a

women's health forum last year preaching about preventative medicine? That is a

question, does she remember? The second question is: Why is it that when she

gets an opportunity to put her money where her mouth is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: - and it is on her shoulders that these decisions rest,

that she chooses to close the door in these people's faces?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it barely demands a response because I

believe it is, again, another form of grandstanding. I really do believe.

I was at that meeting, and I take prevention very seriously. As a matter of

fact, that is why this government this year has put $12 million of new money

into programs for prevention and early intervention. Arthritis does not apply to

people in low-income families or the poor. Unfortunately, arthritis and

osteoporosis can be seen in all aspects of our society. I suspect many people in

this room today are suffering from many of those symptoms and have the same

sorts of problems.

What I will say is that yes, we are committed to prevention. I think the

point needs to be drawn very clearly. Yesterday they wanted the money for

multiple sclerosis for new drugs. Today they are asking for arthritis. Tomorrow

it will probably be diabetes or schizophrenia. It is easy to stand there and ask

for all of it; however, we have to go on the best information we have, and we

have to function from within our budget. We will continue to make responsible

positions and statements, and we will continue to support the concept of

prevention. I believe we have done that, not only through our Budget but through

the new program areas and through an added commitment to our community health

boards -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - of an extra $2 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions relate to the issue

of teacher pensions, and are directed to the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

For some time now government has been discussing with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association the issue of funding of the teachers' pension

plan. I ask the minister: Could he please give this House and the public at

large an update on the status of these discussions and negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This has a rather sad history. When I became Minister of Finance in 1995, I

negotiated for about a year and a half, until the spring of 1997, when we

finalized an agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding with NLTA. They had it

approved by their District Presidents' Association and it never went to a vote.

Afterwards, last fall, they went back with a much less - let me put it this way,

a much more modest proposal to their members, who instructed them by a vote of

approximately 60 per cent not to negotiate with government.

Since that time we have been at the bargaining table and we have raised the

issue again. We have had several meetings over the most recent period of time,

in the last week or two, and we are attempting to move it towards resolution. As

of yet we do not have an agreement on what, if any changes, might be enacted to

preserve the integrity of that pension plan.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government's obligation to the plan and to other plans creates a significant

liability on the future revenues of this Province. Recently I raised the issue

in relation to HST and Term 29 revenue reductions.

I would ask the minister: Would he please indicate what he anticipates the

annual contribution to plans will be in the next fiscal year as it relates to

prior financial obligations?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a matter of discretion for government to determine at this stage.

Government has a portion of the liability under both the PSPP and the Teachers'

Pension Plan. The more critical issue is, what if anything, at this point, the

teachers, in particular, are prepared to do to alleviate the liability.

The pension plan runs out of money in the year 2003 and subsequent to that,

in the following year, we will probably have to find about $120 million or so to

pay the pensions due in that year and increasing thereafter. It is a problem

that we cannot let go on forever. We will put money into all our pension plans

over the next several years, but, at this point, I am not prepared to say what

that amount will be.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The concluding of the Teachers' Collective Agreement appears to be delayed

due to the inability of the government to conclude a satisfactory arrangement on

the financing of the pensions issue. Teachers will now see another school year

conclude without a collective agreement, when most other public servants have

settled these issues.

Is the minister concerned, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this will have a

detrimental impact on the quality of the educational experience since it must

decrease teacher morale?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that concern. The whole issue

surrounding pensions has a long history of us trying to negotiate with the NLTA,

a fair sharing of the burden for both parties failing to contribute properly to

a pension fund where the amount invested over the years did not take into

account the benefits to be paid. It is certainly not the government's fault. We

have actively pursued it, and to be frank, the executive as well has often times

- not always - been cooperative in trying to move it to conclusion.

Unfortunately they have not been able to enlist all their members in a solution,

and to date have not been able to enlist the majority of the members.

I agree with the member. I think that a solution should be found in the near

future. That is one of the reasons we are working to see if we can negotiate it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment

and Labour concerning the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 the government responded quickly to what was a majority

report recommending a decrease in benefits. Now, we have a unanimous report of

the committee which recognizes that injured employees were no more responsible

for causing the unfunded liability than employers, and notes the out-pouring of

human misery that the board heard as being the best indication available of a

compensation system unbalance, and contributed to the increased personal

financial ruin -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when the committee unanimously recognized the

long-term injured workers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when the committee recognized the human harm and

misery caused by this system, why didn't the minister accept the recommendations

of this committee to refocus and rebuild that system and repair the damage being

caused to injured workers by increasing the benefit levels? Why didn't he do

that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly what we have done. We looked at the committee, and as the

financial situation improves in the commission itself, we will pass on these

benefits to the injured workers. That is exactly what we have done in this

particular report, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Why, Mr. Speaker, when the committee unanimously, including

the employer representative and the independent representative, recognized it

was unjust and unreasonable to take back the CPP, claw it back from the workers,

Mr. Speaker, did the minister refuse to recognize the unanimous recommendations

of his committee, and why did he go to someone else looking for advice, instead

of the committee that the government itself appointed to deal with this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission Statutory Report, is maintained the financial prudence of the

commission and dealt with the workers' benefits with what the commission could

afford at this particular time.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why did the minister and his government refuse to legislate a duty to

accommodate injured workers, when the report of the Statutory Review Commission

acknowledged and said that, in 89 per cent of the cases where there was an ease

back to work program, there was a success rate in getting people off the

program? Why wouldn't the minister accept that recommendation, and instead

accepted the minority report of the employer representative, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will enhance the duty to accommodate, and at that particular time, working

with the employers and employees groups, will ensure that at the end of the day

we will benefit the injured workers and the employers as well.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

A couple of days ago I asked the minister some questions regarding the recent

decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reduce the cod total

allowable catch to 3000 metric tonnes in area 4Rs,3Pn and to allow Quebec a

greater share of turbot allocation in 4R,4S,4T; the Gulf Area; a greater share

than fishermen from both Provinces, Quebec and Newfoundland, had agreed to.

As the minister is well aware, those fishermen are now occupying government

offices on the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula, to bring attention to

their frustrations in dealing with this particular issue.

I ask the minister: As the provincial representative of this industry, if he

has met with those fishermen or if he has met with the federal minister

responsible for this industry in Newfoundland?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions last week, Thursday and Friday,

and on Monday, which was yesterday, I had conversations with people on the West

Coast, in particular the representatives of the union out there, on this issue.

As late as yesterday afternoon, at 1:30, I had discussions with different

individuals involved in the demonstration. I have had discussions with the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and we are on record as writing the Minister

of Fisheries and Oceans and stating the Province's position very, very clearly.

There will be a meeting tomorrow afternoon in Ottawa between the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans and representatives from the fisheries groups out there who

are concerned about both issues.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, you are correct. It is my understanding that

representatives of those fishermen will be travelling to Ottawa tomorrow,

Wednesday, in order to meet the federal minister.

Will you, Minister, be going to lend your support to those groups of

fishermen in putting your case forward and our case forward, so that we might

see this change brought about positively?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be travelling to Ottawa with that

group of people because they prefer - and they have said this quite clearly in

discussions that we have had with them - that they go to Ottawa and sit down

with the minister. We have made the Province's position very, very, very clear

to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in writing and by telephone, and at the

same time we have requested a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

on those issues and other issues.

So, DFO and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada know very well

the Province's position and so does the group affected by the decisions on the

West, Southwest and North Coast of the Province. Everybody is in full agreement

on the proper procedures to take place.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly regarding cuts to

the number of teaching units in St. Anthony Elementary School for the 1998-1999

school year.

Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

We, the parents of St. Anthony Elementary School children, draw your

attention to the following;

The proposed reduction of 2.64 teaching units in the 1998-1999 school year at

St. Anthony Elementary is unacceptable. The teacher - student ratio is such that

young children in primary grades, during one of the most influential periods of

a child's development, are unable to receive the attention they require and

deserve. We are particularly concerned about both Kindergarten and Grade I class

size. We recommend staffing so that Kindergarten would have a maximum of fifteen

children in a class, and Grades I, II and III have a maximum of twenty children

in a class.

The reductions also have a negative impact on our French, Physical Education,

Music and Learning Resources Programs. Smaller schools in this area have been

closed because of the recent restructuring and these children have been sent to

St. Anthony Elementary with the promise of better programs. These very programs,

that were used to get children here, and so allowing smaller schools to be

closed, will be severely affected in quality by the proposed cuts. Coupled with

the busing and larger class sizes, the quality of education for these children

will be worse instead of better.

It is the right of every child to receive an education that is competitive,

challenging and rewarding. This will not occur if these cuts are implemented.

We, the parents of St. Anthony Elementary School children, ask for your

support, to alleviate the devastating affects these cuts have on our school.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by a large number of parents who

attended a meeting I was present at in St. Anthony on May 20. Since then the

petition has been circulated in the community and it is arriving in various

components. Today we will present the first of a number of petitions.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in St. Anthony a week or so ago I attended a public

meeting called by the parents. They are very concerned about the reform process

and what it has meant to the children of that particular community. As members

will know, school District #2 closed eight schools last year. They are proposing

to close another three this year. Parents in the St. Anthony area and

surrounding communities have agreed to bus their children longer distances, they

have agreed to give up some of their community schools. However, they did that

on the premise that there would be better programming for their children.

However, what they have found out is that the promised improvements in

programming have not occurred. In fact, in the next school year their

programming will be compromised beyond what it is in this school year.

Mr. Speaker, the parents of St. Anthony are pleading with the government to

come up with a sensible formula for teacher allocation that ensures that their

children will receive equal opportunity and equal access to educational programs

and educational facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the House that when the parents spoke at the

meeting - and they came to the microphone in great numbers. I remember the

comments of a medical doctor who said at that meeting, if his children had to

have a lesser quality of education then he would have to re-examine whether or

not he was prepared to continue to practice in that northern community. Mr.

Speaker, when we have that kind of an impact on families, we know where that

doctor is coming from. There were several doctors who spoke, and they said the

concerns they had concern their children and the programming to be offered in

the school system.

Mr. Speaker, there are cutbacks in music, art and physical education. Parents

were saying that, no, they don't want to have those compromises made if it means

their children are not going to have the same kind of access that other children

in this Province would have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. House that we have had some discussion

between the school district and the minister relative to coming up with a new

formula for the district called District #2, Northern Peninsula/Labrador South.

We know that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

We will have another opportunity on another day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and support the petition presented by the Member for Waterford

Valley on behalf of the people at St. Anthony and the people in the district

school area.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago the people in the St. Anthony region underwent

significant change in education reform. They saw schools within their region

close, they saw children being bused from their community to a larger school

within the region, and they let that happen all on the premise that their

children were going to a school that would be able to provide them with a better

education, a more efficient curriculum, and be able to provide them for what

comes after elementary and primary.

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen. District 2 fulfilled its mandate to

education reform. They moved children, they closed schools, they tightened the

education gap in order to be able to provide these children with a better

education. What is happening is that one year later this school is having to

endure cuts in teacher allocations that are affecting the quality of education

and the curriculum options that it is able to provide.

Now, Mr. Speaker, obviously this is not just and it is not right. The parents

there committed to a process and now that process is being pulled out from under

them. District 2 has been hardest hit by this reform within the Province to

date. Mr. Speaker, they have pioneered the process. They have made the

appropriate changes. They have closed a number of schools. They have bused

children from one end of the school district to the other. They have, wherever

possible, tightened their belts on education.

I think this is certainly not the end of this issue. Today we hear from the

people of St. Anthony. Last week we heard from the people of Red Bay, of

Williams Harbour. There have been protests all throughout this district right

from Hawkes Bay, Plum Point, over in Conche, and all the areas that are

affected, and the parent committees in that area have been very active. They

realize that they have tolerated and did their part under education reform, and

now it is time for the Department of Education to do their part, Mr. Speaker.

These allocations to small schools, while they are working in some cases, are

not working in all. I think we have to assess each case individually. I think we

should commend District 2 for the tremendous job those people have done in

tightening the education system and trying to make it more effective in that

area. At the same time we have to provide them with the tools to be able to

carry through the process, and the tools here, Mr. Speaker, are the teachers in

the classroom. There is no way you can continue to operate a school of any scale

when you continue to downsize curriculum, double up classes, triple classes, cut

programs in physical education and music and so on.

It might be interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in District 2, out of all

the schools that are there, there is only one music program that is presently

going to be offered in September, and that is probably the only district in the

Province with something like thirty schools that would have that particular cut

in their curriculum. Obviously, the parent committees themselves have organized

themselves around this issue. They have discussed it jointly from one community

to the other.

On Saturday they will hold another meeting in Flowers Cove where they will

bring in all the parent committees from Labrador, from the Northern Peninsula

and the St. Anthony area, because they know as parents what this means to their

children. They know it is affecting the quality of education they are receiving.

We are not talking about a phenomenal change here. We are just taking about

little changes that could be made. A teacher put in here or there to be able to

fill those extra programs and to provide that kind of service to the school and

to the children could be done very easily.

I do not think it is right to continue to go back to the board and ask them

to make adjustments, to make cuts, and to continue to look where they can find

these teachers and put them in these other positions because it cannot be done.

Like any situation, Mr. Speaker, there is only so much you can do. This board

has done everything it can within its means. The parents know that, the students

know that, and they know that if they do not make these changes now, these

changes are not going to happen.

We are getting near the end of the school year. We have to see some changes

for District 2 before the children finish up for this year. There is too much

uncertainty for them to carry over the summer. Parents do not know what the

system is going to entail for their children come September.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, I was -

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we revert to petitions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, by all means.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, the subject of which is the

grazing of domesticated animals on the Gooseberry Islands with the subsequent

damage, desecration and indignities to graves and grave sites on these islands.

Hon. members will know that the Gooseberry Islands are two islands directly

north of the Eastport Peninsula, well up into Bonavista Bay, very close to St.

Brendan's. These two islands together are known as the Northern Gooseberry

Island and the Southern Gooseberry Island, the residents of which have made a

great contribution to the development of this Province, particularly to its

early development.

These two islands were settled in the late 1700s and the early 1800s. These

people, like so many of our ancestors, worked so hard and so diligently to eke

out a living from the land and the sea. It was not a very hospitable land or any

hospitable circumstances under which these people toiled to make a living but

they did, Mr. Speaker. One of the great difficulties on these islands was

finding a proper place to bury their loved ones, a proper place to bury their

dead, as there was not a lot of space or a lot of soil. Indeed, in many cases

they had to bring in soil from adjacent islands to bury the dead. Hence they

were buried in very shallow graves, so it did not take much to excavate the

bones and skeletons of the dead.

The people of Gooseberry Islands resettled themselves. They were not under a

resettlement program. Actually, by the time of the resettlement program all of

the people of Gooseberry Islands had resettled, on a voluntary basis, to many

communities on the Eastport Peninsula. A lot of them in particular went to

Glovertown. Hence the majority of people on this petition, 2,000 of them - 2,000

names attached to this petition - the majority of them coming from Glovertown

but scattered throughout communities in the Bonavista Bay area and in other

parts of Canada, as far away as Fort McMurray.

Out of these 2,000 people, many of them would have been born on the

Gooseberry Islands; most of which, though, would have ancestral connections. The

remainder would have sympathy for the cause articulated in this petition, which

is the prevention of further desecration and indignities to the loved ones of

these people buried on these islands. The situation was such that there was not

designated one cemetery or one grave site, if you will. Because of the limited

space, the grave sites were sort of distributed right throughout the island.

Since the people have left the island, some people have over the years taken

animals to the island to graze, with the result that the ancestors, the people

who lived on these islands, are very upset. Throughout the years they had

various understandings with the government that they would enact a law to

prevent domesticated animals from grazing on these islands, and throughout the

years they did get cooperation. However, in 1996, when this government carried

out a regulatory reform, trying to fine-tune all of the laws and regulations by

which we are governed, these laws got wiped out, rescinded. Now we find that

animals are finding their way back on these islands, with which the people are

dissatisfied. They want these laws brought back to ensure there are no

indignities committed to their deceased loved ones on the island.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the petition. It is not in the format that we

normally receive petitions in that it does not have a prayer, but I have

consulted with the Officers of the Table and they think it does meet most of the

requirements of a petition. Since they have come from so many communities, I did

not want to send them back to the people again.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 2,000 residents of the Glovertown -Eastport

Peninsula area, I would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I will simply read the

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. LUSH: Thank you very much.

It says: Re livestock grazing on the Gooseberry Islands in Bonavista Bay:

We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned and much distressed regarding the

roaming of domesticated animals on the Gooseberry Islands. These animals are

damaging headstones, destroying the landscaping and other beauty creating

activities of those who regularly maintain the grave sites of their loved ones,

and making walkways unfit to walk on.

In a number of documented cases, these roaming animals have dug up soil and

exposed human bones. When we look upon the burial sites of loved ones and see

desecration, we are immensely saddened and chagrined. We believe their remains

deserve to be left in peace, and undisturbed on the little islands they loved so

much.

On 16 May 1979, the hon. Joseph Goudie, by the virtue of the powers conferred

upon him by the Livestock Regulations, 1954, designated Gooseberry Island as a

restricted grazing area for livestock and ordered that all livestock be moved

therefrom.

In 1996, as a result of government's regulatory reform process, this 1979

Gooseberry Island Grazing Order lapsed and no longer has any force or effect.

We request, therefore, that you undertake the appropriate action to make each

of Northern Gooseberry Island and Southern Gooseberry Island a restricted

grazing area once again.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of these 2,000 people, I submit their petition and

wholeheartedly endorse the request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words in support of the petition put forward

by the Member for Terra Nova. I say to the Member for Terra Nova, although I

have never been on the Gooseberry Islands, that is where my great-grandmother

came from - moved into Musgravetown. You are so right; most of those people

settled on the north side of Bonavista Bay, if you would, but there were a few

families who moved to Musgravetown, my home town. I heard the name mentioned

many times.

I remember being out to Flat Island, when they had the Flat Island reunion a

few years ago, and I was sadden to see what was happening there to the local

cemetery. We went by there in boat and a lot of the graves - I did not know what

was after happening there; I guess it is the erosion of the soil or whatever - a

lot of the headstones were out ten and fifteen feet into the salt water. It is

sad. We, as Christian people, really reserve a warm spot in our hearts for where

our loved ones are buried. It is not something that we want to see happening,

Mr. Speaker.

Only a couple of months ago, probably a year ago, I saw a television program.

I think it was down on the Burin Peninsula -

AN HON. MEMBER: Great Burin.

MR. FITZGERALD: - Great Burin Island, where a similar thing was

happening, I say to the Member for Terra Nova. The television cameras went in

and did this television documentary on it, and the people there were expressing

the same concern.

Mr. Speaker, I support the member's petition. I think we should move forward

and do whatever we can in order to reserve and protect those burial sites

because it is very important to us, as Christian people, to allow the dead to

rest, I suppose, is a simple way of putting it, and respect cemeteries no matter

where they might be found.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Terra Nova

for bringing forward the petition. He has raised this concern for the past

number of weeks, and we have evaluated the concern that he has brought forward.

We are taking seriously the concerns that the people in that part of the

district have put forward. They have sincerely requested that some sort of

action be taken to deal with the problem they are presently experiencing. Given

the sensitivity of the question we are looking at the options. We will have a

decision made within the next day or so as to the option that is most

acceptable.

We are looking at a couple of them. One of them was potentially fencing the

area and having that protected. Given the fact that the geography of the islands

have these cemeteries all over in different locations, we are looking at the

possibility of re-instituting the no roaming order in the geographic areas of

the islands. We will have a decision in the next day or so, basically.

I want to thank the member for bringing it forward. The hon. member

representing that area has represented that area for a number of years, and the

concerns that he brings forward are brought forward in a fashion of sensitivity

and well-organized thought. I appreciate the fact also that the Opposition is

supporting any possible action that can be taken on the matter.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition today:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime contributing to

their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

first, to ensure public service pensioners receive a raise in their pensions

whenever public servants receive a raise in pay; and second, to reverse the

policy of clawing back Canada Pension Plan benefits from public service

pensioners;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

The people who have signed this petition come from a variety of places, from

Gander, Wexford Street, Cumberland Crescent, Torbay Road, Golf Avenue, and

various places throughout the City of St. John's. Basically what these people

are asking is not a lot. It is asking that when public servants receive a raise

in pay that they should receive a raise in pay as well. As we know, public

servants have not received a raise in pay until recently. They went eight years

without a raise in pay.

Many of the pensioners are out there living on pensions of well below $10,000

a year, which puts them virtually below the poverty line. We can get into

semantics as to whether they paid into this kind of a pension. Certainly they

paid into their Canada Pension. Their Canada Pension is clawed back dollar for

dollar, as I understand, from their public service pension. So we have a group

of people who have made a major contribution to society, they worked all their

lives. Some of them, however, were prematurely put out of the workplace when

there was a downsizing in the provincial government.

What we have is some people out there, aged fifty-five years, on a public

service pension. They didn't mean to be not employed at this particular point in

their lives, but by virtue of the fact that this government downsized, now they

find themselves without a job, depending just on their pension and on their

Canada Pension. As I said, they paid into their Canada Pension all their working

lives, and now that is being clawed back dollar for dollar from their public

service pension. What the point of paying into the Canada Pension was I do not

know, when it is going to be clawed back from them.

However, we have a lot of people out there. They are employable, I suppose,

in that they can go to work, but they are not finding it easy to get employment

because they are fifty-five years of age and they have been laid off. They

virtually have gone from full-time full employment into living below the poverty

line, because their pension does not give them enough on which to live

comfortably, or even adequately. They do not receive a raise in pension as they

would have received a raise in pay had they stayed on as public servants.

So the prayer of their petition is to ask to receive a raise in their pension

whenever public servants receive a raise in pay, and not to have their Canada

Pension Plan benefits clawed back from their public service pension.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words as it relates to the petition as presented by

my colleague, the Member for St. John's West.

We have presented numerous petitions and there have been questions asked in

this House, in fact even a private member's resolution on the topic of public

service pensions. Very often public service pensioners in our Province have

spoken loudly in terms of their perceived need of why it is incumbent on this

government to certainly give serious consideration to the fact that an increase

in public service pensions is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the statistics. We know there are thousands of

Newfoundlanders who have devoted their working lives to governments of every

political stripe. In addition to that, we also have seen the statistics that

show that the average pension income for these public service pensioners hovers

around $10,000, well below an amount which is considered, by any standard, to be

acceptable this day and age.

Mr. Speaker, this is again an important issue. It is a petition which is

signed, I understand, by residents throughout this region of the Province. We

have public service pensioners who live throughout every region of our Province,

and they have come together as an organization in a concerted effort to really

try to impress this government and to show this government that this is an area

of real concern. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have

not seen fit to address seriously the concerns of these pensioners. The issue

which is being raised in defence - which I believe is an indefensible position -

but the issue being raised in defence and in response to the request of these

pensioners is the fact that this is what public service pensioners have

contributed; therefore this is what they are entitled to.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that attention and consideration ought to be given to

people who have given significantly to governments of this Province over the

years. When we look at the cost of living today, and we look at the real need

which is being demonstrated by these people today, certainly a government of

compassion and a government with a heart would look very seriously at reviewing

this whole issue and at least giving consideration to increasing their pension

benefits equal to the amount which is being given to the public service

generally today.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue. It affects thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Once again, a request is being made in good

faith on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition here today, another petition from people on Sunday

shopping.

We, the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, being retail

workers, families of retail workers, and citizens, do hereby petition the hon.

House of Assembly to rescind the amendment to the Shops' Closing Act that

permits stores to remain open for business on Sunday. This amendment will cause

extreme difficulty for the retail workers and their families. We see no benefit

that will come from Sunday shopping.

Now it is on behalf of the retail workers and their families that I am

presenting this petition. This petition is signed from people in Manuels, Long

Pond, and here in St. John's.

As I have said many times before in this House of Assembly, Sunday shopping

is going to and has presented hardship on the families of retail workers. I

continue to get telephone calls, and as recently as last week I got a letter

from a young woman who works in the hospital system and her husband is a meat

cutter at Dominion. Dominion stores are not just open now from 12:00 noon until

5:00 p.m. Since the Shops' Closing Act was passed, Dominion Stores have opened

twenty-four hours a day. This young lady and her husband, who are the parents of

a couple of children, their family life has been eroded because he is working

almost every Sunday; some shift or other. There was a time, she said, she worked

one Sunday a month or probably two Sundays a month and the other Sundays they

had to spend their time together.

MR. EFFORD: You are not at Sunday shopping again!

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I

am not at Sunday shopping again. The people of this Province are at Sunday

shopping again.

This petition came in to me from residents of Manuels, Long Pond, Foxtrap and

St. John's, and it is on their behalf. Because they are not standing here in the

House of Assembly, they are unable to, they have asked me to present this

petition on their behalf. Actually, it is my pleasure to do so.

This is a very cruel act, it has eroded people's lives. There are some people

out there who say the stores are busy on Sundays, and well they might be, but

they are not doing any extra business, I can assure you. If you speak to most

store owners they will tell you that the business that they are doing on Sunday

is lost on Saturday or Monday. So at the end of the week there are no greater

dollars into their stores and there are no greater dollars into the tax revenues

of this Province.

So who this legislation was brought in on behalf of, I am not sure, but

certainly there are many families out there with summer coming up now and their

entire family life is being eroded because of the passing of this act which

really benefits nobody and causes hardship to these people.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2.

I Move That The House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply

to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Raising of Loans by the

Province. (Bill No. 15)

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford) : Bill No. 15.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was speaking yesterday on Bill 15 and I had some questions for the Finance

Minister that he responded to. We are only talking about a couple of hundred

million dollars - that's all! - to go out in the markets, if necessary, for the

government to go out and be able to borrow. I guess it is a good time to have

those bonds coming due out on the market, particularly when we are at a low rate

of inflation, a low interest rate now. It always helps our cause. Anytime you

are borrowing and interest rates are down, it tends to be positive, and

hopefully that situation exists when we have to put them back on the market.

The ones that are coming due now, I think, there is about 9 1/8 per cent and

8 3/4 per cent. So we are going to be saving ourselves, I think the minister

said yesterday, 6.17 per cent, I think, with 4/10 of 1 per cent fee; 6.1 per

cent which is about 3 per cent less on the series EC51s that are coming due. I

think the other one was at a floating rate.

So, overall on $150 million worth, we are saving ourselves a few per cent

there to put back again into the market-place. It is a good opportunity.

Unfortunately, there are not more coming due, I say.

The minister assured us that with all this good news we are experiencing, the

better tomorrow, things will get better and we will have a better credit rating,

because we have dropped. Since 1989 our credit rating has dropped. We have had

deficits; a budget over, I believe, $240 million one year, back in 1989. We have

seen an increase since 1989. Now our debt has increased by over 40 per cent. It

might even be higher. The right figure I know I have in my notes somewhere.

MR. H. HODDER: Forty-two point six per cent.

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague for Waterford Valley says 42.6 per cent. I'm

not sure whether that's -

MR. H. HODDER: Actually, you said it was 42.611 per cent.

MR. SULLIVAN: If I said it was 42.611 per cent, it is 42.611 per cent; an

increase in our debt because we are continually going into debt.

I might add, the previous administration, of which he was also a member, had

$250,000 one year alone. We ran up hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars

since 1989 in debt, I might add, and we are still running up debts.

MR. BARRETT: You are up every day telling us to spend more money.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Member for Bellevue, he has his hand in the

pot of money too, I can tell you. He has his hand in the cookie jar.

The minister announced in her budget, a new $2.8 million for drugs. I ask

her: Why doesn't she -

MR. BARRETT: Be careful what you say now. (Inaudible) my hand in the

cookie jar.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why, don't you like cookies? The Cookie Monster likes

cookies, doesn't he? If the Cookie Monster doesn't like cookies -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) to me.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Cookie jar? It could mean a lot of things, I say to the

member. Whichever one he feels most appropriately fits, whatever cap, I will ask

him to wear it. I am sure my colleague for Waterford Valley knows all about

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, all about the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Loyola, look, you are too nice a person (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You said that about the Member for Waterford Valley last

year and now you are saying it about me.

MR. BARRETT: You are too nice.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not at all.

He is trying to stand up for democracy in our Province, I might say to the

member.

Now they want a bill for $200 million now to run out to the market and

borrow. By the way, it's a standard bill, it's nothing out of the ordinary,

basically. We all know that when we go to the market and they come due and

payable that we have to pay up and go out and get new money. I am delighted we

are saving 3 per cent on $150 million this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever have a loan guarantee from government?

MR. SULLIVAN: The answer is no, I would say to him. I wouldn't want one.

I would starve first, I say. He is just trying to provoke me to speak for an

hour on the next bill that is coming up. Maybe I just might, on the next bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? It would take this government to understand the needs

of people out there and show some compassion and do what is right, instead of

costing us more money in the long term, I say. I will give him some examples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, $1 million wouldn't hurt. Don't worry, we have seen

the brown bags on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would. So he admits I am causing great grief to him over

there.

I had the Member for St. John's Centre, actually the health minister over

there now too - I had an opportunity to go back to the House and ask a question

I asked him when he was health minister back in 1994.

I asked the member, that is Dr. Kitchen: Is the policy working? That is the

50 cent cap. Will the minister table whatever evidence he has to show me that

more doctors are practising in rural areas as a result of this policy? He said:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have extended a 50 per cent rule to other areas. He

said: Since it has only barely been extended - it is almost a year - it's not

significant to judge. He took a swipe at me, I might add. I am trying to find

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. SULLIVAN: Dr. Kitchen, the former health minister, just before he got

vacated from the post by the former premier. He took a little swipe at me, and

it didn't do very good. I am trying to find that quote now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he hit you?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he didn't, he wasn't moving fast enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would never do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought he just said yes and no or no and yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyway, whatever it is. He said: We will probably need an

extra doctor, I say to the Minister of Justice, when I asked him a question.

Isn't this problem with doctors, the cap, isn't it going to do the very

opposite, a disincentive to what you are trying to accomplish? This was back in

1994, you know, and so true, May 19. I said: By putting a cap in St. John's, you

are not going to force doctors into rural Newfoundland. What you are going to do

is you are going to force them right straight out of the Province and into other

areas. Today there are more unfilled positions in rural Newfoundland than there

were when I asked that question: Is he going to do it?

He said: We will probably need an extra doctor here in the House of Assembly

to look after the hon. member. He seems to have something wrong with his throat.

It seems to be open all the time. Everybody knows Dr. Kitchen; he had his little

bit of humour and he was kind of feisty at times. He said: Apart from that

little specific, that special need for that particular member, Mr. Speaker, we

have sufficient doctors in some parts of this Province and there is no point in

hiring other doctors where they are sufficient and in excess.

Well right now we have created the same problem. I said in my questions

today: Now not only have we driven doctors out of the Province and have a bigger

problem in rural Newfoundland, we have caused a problem in urban Newfoundland

today. In the City of St. John's, one doctor passed away recently, another

doctor is leaving the Province, another one changed careers, a few retired here

recently, and people cannot get access to services that they need because of

this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And I compliment the minister on a full complement. In

fact, I am very familiar with where the unfilled positions in the Province are.

I actually visited every single part of the Province just a few years ago. I was

in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, I went to Lab West with a committee on health, I

went to the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast, the South Coast, Central

Newfoundland, Clarenville, the Harbour Grace - Carbonear area and St. John's. I

went to about ten different places as health critic listening to what people

were telling me from various regions.

An unusual part of that: After I got back home, I had many more calls from

people who were afraid to come out to the meetings to tell me what is really

going on. That is where I found out most of the things, not on public record,

but from the telephone calls; because they fear for their positions within the

hospital settings here in the Province, within the health system. There are many

people out there today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It happens in some instances. People fear for their jobs,

people have been fired for speaking out, gotten kicked out. The minister there,

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the former Works, Services and

Transportation, fired a guy over in Stephenville for speaking out. I mean, it

has happened with this government, it has happened.

I went to another meeting, one of those that had over 200 people, and they

stood up and spoke. They did not care. Some people spoke but some people are

concerned, they have a mortgage to pay, they have children to feed and they

cannot take a chance on being blacklisted and losing a job; and that happens.

That has happened. That is shameful but it has happened here in the Province,

and it should not be.

So what have we done now? People out there today will tell you - there is

hardly a person in this House who does not know something or have somebody

related in some way who works in our health care system -

AN HON. MEMBER: The polls are up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are there lights on them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, were are they up? On the side of the street?

AN HON. MEMBER: Up 7 per cent in the Premier's popularity. Up 5 per cent

in the (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. Well, all I can say to the Premier is, if he wants

his popularity to go up he has to keep staying away from here, I suppose. He has

been out of here, and if he ever comes back -

MR. TULK: Regardless of what he is doing, Loyola, it must be working.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do we have a copy there? Representing the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, it is not working for Ed though.

MR. SULLIVAN: Boy, you will have to talk to -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not working for Ed; down in (inaudible) polls.

Where is the leader tonight?

MR. SULLIVAN: When people are not here, lots of people have legitimate

reasons. I do not care to discuss their reasons here in a public debate in the

House. It is legitimate; I do not question that. I have not said he is not on

legitimate - in fact, I even said, the Minister of Health and Community Services

last week, when I asked a question and the Premier rose on a resolution on MS,

was out representing us in the rest of the Province. That has to be done; I have

never complained about that.

I complain about the Premier when he tries to keep his profile up at national

level, running around to chase the Upper Churchill contract when he knows he is

only trying to keep his profile up across the country; those type of things. I

said: Stop wasting time Premier. Get down and negotiate an agreement. Which they

did. They have a rough grounds or basis now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you support (inaudible) for the leadership of the

Tory Party?

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not involved. The first convention I ever attended in

the Tory Party was in 1992 when I was elected as a member, I can tell you. I was

never to a convention, never supported anybody. In the 1989 leadership, I was

never there. I was never involved until 1992, when I ran as a member. I worked

two elections back in the 1970s.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not. I was not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you have liked to have seen a Newfoundlander be

Prime Minister of this country?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure I would. Sure, why not? Unless it was completely off

the wall, somebody who would not make a good representative.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he going to run for, Premier of Newfoundland or

Prime Minister of Canada?

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he going to run for, Premier of Newfoundland or

Prime Minister of Canada?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Premier of Atlantica. This Atlantic Union he has

been pushing, Atlantica. If you can't have the big pie, at least get a

medium-sized pie.

He is quoted and I have the quote. I have a quote from a national newspaper,

when he talked about Atlantica, and I will show it to the member. He has put

that forth but it brought up resistance, I can tell you. He floated out there, I

say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are getting on with.

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, it floated out. I know it is genuine. I would not get

up and say something that I did not believe. I would not say something that I

did not believe to be true. The member now out there in - is it Fogo &

Twillingate or Twillingate & Fogo?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twillingate.

MR. SULLIVAN: And Fogo, I think, is in the name.

MR. G. REID: Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Twillingate & Fogo.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same name they had in 1832.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is it? The only district, by the way, that has never

changed. It was always the name -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there is only one since the 1800s that has always had

the same name and nothing else added, nothing taken away, the same exact name,

and that was Ferryland District. Not another in the Province. Look at every

single year, every single one. Some have changed and have come back to the

original.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will guarantee you, whoever gerrymandered up those

districts need their head examined.

MR. SULLIVAN: This last time? The guy who gerrymandered that is sitting

in the seat that the Government House Leader is sitting in right now. The Member

for Twillingate & Fogo said whoever gerrymandered up that last electoral map,

basically, should have his head -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eddymandered.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you say his head cut off? It was Eddymandered. That is

what it was, Eddymandered.

MR. TULK: Do you know why he did it?

MR. SULLIVAN: He wanted to get a few more Liberals elected. That is what

he wanted to do. He wanted to get a few more Liberals elected. Why do you think

he did it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is trying to get you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) part of Fogo and Twillingate (inaudible) part of

Bonavista North.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he was not supporting Walter Carter was he? He was not

supporting Walter Carter? Oh, I know, trying to get rid of you. I know what you

are saying. Yes, I know what you are saying.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Bonavista North.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I caught on to that before. I was just trying to avoid

it. I wanted the member to say it himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: He tried to get rid of me too.

MR. SULLIVAN: He tried to get rid of all of us.

MR. TULK: I will tell you something, he did me a great favour that's for

sure. As a matter of fact (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you supporting him for that Senate seat?

MR. TULK: Who, Ed?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I guess. If you needed a lawyer would you go to him?

MR. TULK: As a lawyer? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Would you? No, he is in the court now. He is going to be

down -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? Speak up, we can't get a record of it. We can't get a

record for Hansard. Will you speak up, I say to the member?

MR. TULK: I told you (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What is this, June 2? Was it a year ago today that we had

the federal election? Was that June 2 that we had a federal election last year?

The member over across the House told me back in April, way back before an

election was ever called. I said: Bill Matthews is going to win the District of

Burin - St. George. And he lost the battle.

AN HON. MEMBER: Charlie Power said he was going to give up his pension.

MR. SULLIVAN: That wasn't then was it? That wasn't on June 2, no. That

wasn't on June 2, not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I cannot see doing that, but I can tell you it took a

long while to collect from the Member for Windsor - Springdale. It took a long

while to collect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you will not be out knocking on doors with

Charlie the next time like you were (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not out knocking on doors this time. I was up in my

district this time. I did some campaigning this time, sure. I went out to the

gathering.

AN HON. MEMBER: You told me the other day you never.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I thought you meant when he was in here, back in the

Province. No, I went out the last time. I did some work in my district and he

won my district by 2,200 votes. His majority was a little over three. Twenty-two

hundred of that majority was in Ferryland District, I might add.

I did an interview up at the site, at a function there. CBC and numerous

others asked me, and I made a statement. I will hold myself accountable for what

I say. I do not hold myself accountable for what anybody else says; I cannot

control it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Seriously. I know what I would do in a situation but I

cannot speak for what someone else would do, the same as anybody there. You can

beat it around all you wish.

I campaigned for him as an Independent back in 1974, and in one of his first

campaigns as a PC back in the 1970s. I was not involved in the 1980 campaigns.

The next campaign I was involved in was in 1992 when I ran as a member. That is

it. I will be involved in the next campaign if you decide to call it the fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: We were up in Renews campaigning (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That was the first time, was it, in the by-election?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I know. They were up in Renews campaigning, and do you

know what? I wish they had to be in the other communities. I won Renews two to

one the first time, even though it was a close election. It was a close election

and I won it by a score of two to one. I can even give him the vote in the

community. I wish he had to go to some other communities that I did not do as

well in, I might add. He must have been up in Renews the last two times, too. He

was probably all over the place the last time. Actually it was a very close one

I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: In 1992, 125 votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. SULLIVAN: The first time I ran, 125 votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is Member for St. John's South, 108 votes, I believe.

Wait for the next time. St. John's West, what was it, 109 votes or something?

Beat him by one. Look out the next time, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who didn't?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) didn't go over too well (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Boy, he goes over well wherever he goes. Ask his

constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was down in his district on Sunday trying to campaign

for him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Were you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What did he tell you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is getting me wound up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is hard to ignore. He is interfering in everything out

there. He is hard to ignore. If he did his job and did his role and did not

interfere with the arm's length processes that are put in place by the

Legislature of this Province, we would not have to worry about him. But we

cannot have legislation put in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In what, the election?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, and you assured the election of the Member

for Waterford Valley on the Southlands issue. Yes, I would say that assured his

re-election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Who knows? It might not be so sure for the Member for Mount

Pearl the next time around.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know, I am not close to him.

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Two safe seats where?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, where is that? What about the Member for Bonavista

South? What about the Member for Waterford Valley? What about all of these

colleagues behind me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Gives us a copy.

Listen, there are sensible people up in Ferryland District.

MR. J. BYRNE: And Cape St. Francis.

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, there are only two districts in this Province

that have never changed stripes since 1949 - only two.

The Straits has always been Liberal, and Cape St. Francis, which used to be

East Extern, has always been -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the last time you had your chance. You will never get a

second chance to do what you did not do the last time. I stated that in federal

ridings, and I say it in this House, too. I told people across the way while

federal riding were going to fall this time. On the first anniversary of the

federal election last year, I predicted what riding were going to fall here and

I told the members. Some even went out on a limb and bet on the elections, who

was going to win, and they ended up losing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Many are called but few are chosen, Ed Roberts would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Roberts would also say, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can say it. The Member for Bonavista North stood and

awaited his time and now his time has arrived.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What did you say the former House Leader said?

AN HON. MEMBER: He also serves who only stands and waits.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a lot of merit to that. The member there stood and

waited, and he served by standing and waiting, and now he is having an

opportunity to serve in a greater capacity.

MR. FITZGERALD: The former Member for Eagle River said that many are

called but few are chosen.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said many are called but few are frozen. That is what he

said. He got frozen out the last time, that is what happened to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: When was that? Oh right, yes. You were in the gallery from

1989 to 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, 1989 to 1993. Since 1992, for the first two or

three years I was in here there was only one person in his House who never

changed his seat. He was still in the same seat - went through the general

election of 1993 - and that was the former Member for Eagle River, or what is

now the District of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair. He was still in the same spot

back there. When he moved from that spot up there occupied by... I think the

second one there, where the Minister of Government Services and Lands is now, I

think that is the seat he was in. When he moved out of that seat -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What did I tell you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I just got carried away. The Member for Bellevue

got me irritated there and I had to set the record straight on a few issues.

When the former Member for Eagle River moved out of that seat up there, occupied

now by the Minister of Government Services and Lands, and went down to one

occupied by the new parliamentary assistant there, when he went into that seat

it was all downhill. That is where it started. We warned him. He would not

believe it, he couldn't even see it coming, but it happened. Now he will never

get a second chance to get back in that riding again. He is shut out the door.

In spite of the efforts of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, it is not

going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I don't, I know. Besides, I would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have to?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, well, I am glad I am reminded. Because certainly when

I get on to some other bills I will not need to be reminded, I say to the

minister. This bill, I have the answers to a few questions I wanted there from

the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will. In fact, I have members here chomping at the bit to

get up again and have their say. We have a list here, look. We are going to have

to limit debate on this bill because I have seven people who want to speak on

this. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can show you the list. Look, seven people want to

speak on this bill that I have right down here now, and that is just in the

Official Opposition. So I am going to sit down and give some of these other

people a chance. In fact, I think the next person who wants to speak on it is

the Member for Cape St. Francis. He is ready to speak and go on this. I am sure

he might want to enlighten you for the next half hour.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 15, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of

Money By Way Of Loan By The Province". Basically the government, through this

act, wants to borrow upwards of $200 million to be applied from April 1, 1998,

to the management and the securities of the sinking fund. The monies raised

under this act is in addition to the monies raised under the other acts.

We have a Budget here that has been spoken of in the past by the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board and the Premier, and it talks about a balanced budget

all the time. Here we are, right off the mark, looking to borrow $200 million. I

was noticing in the Budget Highlights, and I think I have referred to it in the

past, the

Summary Of Gross Capital Account Expenditures. I was making

comparisons from last year to this year. There are some curious numbers here.

Resource Development went from $23,258,000 down to $16,207,000 million. That

is a cut of some $7 million. The Municipal Infrastructure has been cut by

another $5 million this year. No wonder they are talking about a balanced

budget. The Educational Facilities - now here is an interesting one - cut from

$41 million, rounding it off, down to $23,749,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a

cut of, as I said, around $17 million or $18 million for education this year.

From my memory, when we had the Education Referendum, Mr. Chairman, the

government talked about putting money back into education. All their savings

that they would have by closing down the schools and laying off teachers and

consolidating services, Mr. Chairman, would go back into the classroom. We do

not see any indication of it here, I say to the Member for Bellevue, any

indication of the money going back into the classroom, when they are cutting the

education budget by something like $17 million.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, $17 million. That is what it is, I say to the Member

for Bellevue.

Another one here, Mr. Chairman, is Equipment Acquisition, et cetera; whatever

et cetera means, Mr. Chairman. It is cut from $13 million down to $8 million.

Public Buildings: Now here is a interesting one. Here is a very interesting

one. Public Buildings going from $4,691,000 up to $6 million. If the Minister of

Finance were here or whoever is answering questions, I say to you, Mr. Chairman,

I am curious on that one there; if they could give some explanation as to what

is going on there, why they are spending an extra $1.4 million on Public

Buildings?

Now, as far as I understood, Elizabeth Towers has become privatized, they

have sold off a bunch of apartments over in Churchill Square and what have you,

Mr. Chairman, and they are looking at spending another $1.5 million. I am just

curious on that.

Also, under the

summary of Budgetary Financing Sources, Mr. Chairman, it says

- oh, here is an interesting one; the Contingency Revenue of $30 million. Now

$30 million, again -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I am worth it, I am sure, I say to the Member for

Bellevue. He says that $30 million is there to pay me. I am sure I am worth it,

I have no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman.

What is that going to be used for, I ask the Minister of Finance? Could he

explain what he used it for last year, when it was there last year, Mr.

Chairman?

In actual fact they were looking at a $10 million deficit. I said it before

in the House of Assembly, that in actual fact there is a $20 million surplus

here; a $20 million surplus.

Also, under Revenue Sources, Mr. Chairman: They have the federal government

in 1997/98 give us $1,584,899,000. This year it is $1,476,000,000, a decrease,

Mr. Chairman - it cannot be $100 million, surely God. Anyway, significant,

significant, significant cuts from the federal government, Mr. Chairman. And

why?

Of course, I am wondering why this government does not question the federal

government on this, why they are not up in arms in trying to get something more

for the Province, Mr. Chairman, especially, in light of the fact that the

transfer payments are being cut; and that is what we are talking about of

course. The transfer payments are being cut because of out-migration in this

Province.

I referred that today, in Question Period, to the Minister of Works, Service

and Transportation, when I asked him the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of questions to be

answered with respect to this Budget. We have been on this Budget for some time

now. We are trying to approve a bill here, Mr. Chairman,

An Act To Authorize The

Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province Of $200 Million. Of course, it

is all interconnected, one with the other, and it is something that we have to

address in due course.

Now, this is where the money goes. That is an interesting one, Mr. Chairman.

I have a pie chart here, and I am sure if the Minister of Mines and Energy were

here, Mr. Chairman, he would - speak of the devil - he would understand about

pie charts. He likes pictures, I understand, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, the Department of Health spends 25.7 per cent of the Budget. Now, Mr.

Chairman, we have the Opposition House Leader here asking questions of the

Minister of Health daily, when the House of Assembly opens, and he has a hard

time getting answers. Often times he gets an answer and it is a repetitive

answer with respect to the health care in this Province.

The previous minister used to talk about health care improving, whenever he

was asked a question, and the present minister makes an attempt to answer. She

makes an attempt to answer the questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of time here. We are here, I

say to the Minister of Fisheries, until maybe -

AN HON. MEMBER: July.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would think. I mean, with the number of bills that are

there, Mr. Chairman, and the discussion and the review that needs to be done and

the questions that we have, we are looking at, I would say, maybe July; unless

the government decides to pull back some of their bills. If we go with what is

being proposed here, when the House opened up, we are going to have a lot of

discussion in this House of Assembly.

As I was mentioning, the Department of Health and Community Services has 25.7

per cent of the Budget. Health care in this Province, I don't know, I can't see

it as improving, for sure, from personal experience in the health care system. I

have to say the nurses and the doctors and what have you in the various

hospitals are overworked and understaffed; there is no doubt about that. What we

need to do is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I couldn't tell you, I don't know. He doesn't report to me

all the time.

Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the House they are making some motions and

what have you. I don't understand what they are getting on with. The Leader of

the Opposition I would say is very busy making contact with constituents across

this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, they are making more contact

with constituents in this Province than that crowd over there! They don't make

any contact. They are running away, hiding all the time. People try to get hold

of ministers and they are afraid to answer the phone calls of the people in this

Province, the people that they are elected to represent. Our Leader, with every

call comes in, just like every member on this side of the House, responds right

away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely! I would say. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, back to my

concerns with health; the Leader of the Opposition, his concerns, Mr. Chairman.

Again, the staff in the hospitals are overworked, understaffed, as I said

before many, many times. As a matter of fact, I will talk about the morale. I

remember bringing up in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, the first year I

came in here, 1993, about the morale in the civil service. It has been decimated

ever since. The Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board getting

up and saying there are no more lay-offs, but let's look at what is happening to

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I would say to the Government House Leader,

phone over and find out if anybody has any notices of their lay-offs lately.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know about that crowd over there.

They seem to be pretty insensitive, I can tell you that. We have people in the

hospitals going in for certain procedures and these people have no sensitivity

whatsoever. That is why the health care in this Province is in such a mess; no

sensitivity, no more human factor, all gone out the window, gone with this

Administration.

Mr. Chairman, we will just move off health for a few minutes so that they can

get their composure back, and we will talk about education. What a Minister of

Education! I don't think the Premier could have picked a better man to put in

that place for him. If I was on that side of the House and was premier I

wouldn't have that Minister of Education, I can guarantee you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would you have?

MR. J. BYRNE: There wouldn't be anyone on that side of the House I could

pick, I can tell you, because there is no heart, none.

MR. SHELLEY: Take them from outside.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, guaranteed!

MR. SHELLEY: Like they did in the federal government, went outside.

MR. J. BYRNE: Went outside and brought him in.

MR. SMITH: Brought in Pettigrew.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right, brought in people from outside, Mr.

Chairman, the federal government did.

If they wanted someone who could go through the education system in this

Province and do what had to be done, there is no doubt they picked the right

man. The Premier owes the Minister of Education big time and I am waiting to see

when he is going to be rewarded, and what he is going to be rewarded with. I am

not sure, but there will be another ministerial position in the near future, I

would say, one that won't be so demanding and the minister won't have to take

such a hard knock from the media. He deserves it too, for what has been going on

in this Province and the mess that the education system is in in this Province

today; parents out on strikes, blocking schools and closing schools all over the

Province. It is going to get worse. I really don't know who he is going to put

in to replace the Minister of Education, but I would say one of the -

MR. SHELLEY: The tin man, got no heart.

MR. J. BYRNE: The tin man? I referred to that before, that this

Administration is like the tin man in The Wizard of Oz . The problem here

is they don't even know they don't have a heart. I expect the Member for Humber

East might go in as the Minister of Education or they may put the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture there. I am not sure, but one of them anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am just saying that the Minister of Education, when the

Premier decides to replace him and is looking for somebody to put back in there,

someone without a heart or someone who is going to do the job, he would probably

look to you. That is who he is going to look for, a member with no heart. That

is what he will be after, Mr. Chairman. Or he may look to the man next to you,

of course. It is going to be pay back time for him soon, I suppose, I say to the

Member for Humber East.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am going to sit down now and let one of the members

on this side of the House get up and say a few words. Maybe I will get up again

in due course, depending on how things are going.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Penney): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 15 now before the House. Mr. Chairman,

it is a piece of legislation that has to do with the public finance and the

public debt of the Province. As was indicated at the time of Budget, we have

done something rather remarkable in this Province to the public debt in the

three years from 1995 to 1998. We have reduced the direct public debt by $900

million, in the three years prior to this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will talk about harm in a minute.

In three years, Mr. Chairman, $900 million has been removed from the public

debt by this government, and I want to speak about that in the context of the

statements made by the Minister of Finance during the Budget.

We have two Pauls, Mr. Chairman, one in Ottawa - I am not allowed to mention

the one here except as the Minister of Finance, but they seem to speak from the

same hymn book when they say to the rousing chorus from the backbenchers: There

is just no more money. And the crowd from the back benches pound their desks.

There is just no more money, they say, Mr. Chairman. Yet, they would get a

standing ovation at the Reform Party of Canada National Convention for not only

having eliminated the deficit but, in fact, reducing the public debt by some 15

per cent.

Now, Mr. Chairman, how do they do that? How do they, on the one hand, say

there is just no more money for people on social assistance. They have to have

these cold-hearted and cruel policies dictated by Paul Martin in Ottawa, that

they are going to give with one hand from Ottawa and take away from the people

on social assistance. Why? Because there is just no more money. That is the

mantra. That is the mantra of the Reform Party, it is the mantra of Paul Martin,

and it is the mantra of our Paul, Mr. Chairman; their Paul, the Paul on the

other side, the Minister of Finance. There is just no more money.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, what do we have? We had the Premier here last fall

fulminating like the predecessor Premier, fulminating about the size of the

national debt and the provincial debt, talking about what a burden it is on the

people of the Province. Mr. Chairman, what do they do? They beat that drum until

the cows come home, and for what purpose? To be able to get away with policies

that are hurting the people of this Province, hurting the little people of this

Province, Mr. Chairman, hurting the people who do not have the wherewithal, the

flexibility, the resources, the opportunity, the jobs, to be able to allow them

to share in the benefits of our society.

They use it to justify the claw-back on social assistance recipients. They

finally had to give way, but I don't give them any credit for that. They finally

had to give way a week or so ago, Mr. Chairman. They use it to justify the

failure to deal with the problems of the public service pensioners who have a

less than $10,000 average income, not enough to live on. They use it to justify

their own failure to deal with the whole issue of child hunger in this Province

and the failure to make more than a token effort to solve that problem. They use

it, Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Environment and Labour said today, to

justify the failure to recognize that -

MR. SHELLEY: The Minister of Fisheries is a token effort.

MR. HARRIS: They use it, Mr. Chairman, to justify the failure of

government to respond to the unanimous call from the Workers' Compensation

Statutory Review Tribunal, including the employer representative, including the

independent representative; the unanimous call to restore balance to the system

and to put back some of the benefits that the workers are entitled to, Mr.

Chairman.

Why are they entitled to it, Mr. Chairman? Because, as the Statutory Review

Tribunal said in its report, the workers are not the cause. The injured

employees were no more responsible for causing the unfunded liability than were

the employers, and that in fact the average assessments for employers have not

in fact decreased. What the committee said, Mr. Chairman, is that the average

employer assessments have effectively remained the same since 1992, and indeed a

large proportion of employer assessments have actually decreased in recent

years.

So, who are the voices that the government is listening to, Mr. Chairman? Are

they listening to the ordinary people who are being hurt by government programs

or the lack of government programs where they are needed, or are they listening

to the louder voices, the louder voices who have access to the ministers, access

to the government; the decision makers, Mr. Chairman, not the people.

The unanimous recommendation of this committee, who had listened to all the

people, listened to the stakeholders, so-called, Mr. Chairman, listened to the

employers, listened to their complaints -what did they find, Mr. Chairman? That

the complaints from employers about how the assessments were hurting business

were not substantiated. Mr. Chairman, what they did find was that reduced income

levels to injured workers hindered the healing process and contributed to family

disruption.

It talked about the system being unbalanced, that it had contributed to

increased personal financial ruin and family breakdown, people losing their

homes, Mr. Chairman, people having their marriages break up. It was a plea that

the committee took seriously when they made the unanimous recommendation that

there be a re-balancing. When they looked at the CPP offset, they talked about

the injustice and the unreasonableness to hold that the contributions the

workers made to CPP should go to the benefit of the Workers' Compensation

Commission and ultimately to the employer.

What it said, Mr. Chairman, was that to entitle the Workers' Compensation

Commission to set off what the worker was entitled to recoup under the Canada

Pension Plan would, in effect, be depriving the worker of all the benefit from

the premium paid by him or her, and appropriating that to the Workers'

Compensation Commission.

Mr. Chairman, those are not the words of somebody going to the Statutory

Review Committee and pleading on behalf of the workers. That is the unanimous

report of the committee: the nominee of the employers, the representative of

employers, the representative of employees, the independent representative, and

the chair. All of these people heard the representations that were made, the

arguments about the assessments being hard on business, et cetera, none of which

were justified by any evidence, Mr. Chairman. That is what the board found, that

is what the review committee found; none of it was justified.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will see you over at CBC in half an hour if you are willing

to go, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. You do not mind sitting here and

denying somebody leave but you will not go out in the public forum and talk

about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, we have a review -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister knows what I am talking about. He is the one who

turned down the interview.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: He is the one who turned down the interview. Just ask him.

You ask him.

Mr. Chairman, the financial situation of the Province is used as an excuse to

prevent the re-balancing of the Workers' Compensation system, repairing the

damage caused since 1992. That is what happened, repairing the damage that was

caused since 1992 when there was a majority report with a very big dissent, a

very strong dissent, by the workers' representative.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, last week in this hon. House of Assembly we had

a number of discussions or debates - not discussions but debates - on the future

of Newfoundland and Labrador, the viability of rural Newfoundland and Labrador

as it applies to the seal industry, and how it was impacting on the return of

the commercial fish stocks, and how the lives of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador depended on some immediate action and the controversy being taken away

by the IFAW and our friend opposite who is supporting the IFAW.

He just challenged me, just made a comment across the House, that I would not

appear before CBC television today for a three- or four-minute interview, which

I refused to do. But I challenge the hon. member to an hour's debate anywhere in

this Province that he wishes to have a debate on the future of the Newfoundland

and Labrador sealing industry.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: When the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture becomes leader

of his party, which I understand he wishes to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - I will debate him anywhere in this Province, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, just to answer: Mr. Efford, the interview is rescheduled

for 4:00 p.m. tomorrow.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understood the minister to put on the record the fact that he refused to do

an interview at CBC. I am sure that is what Hansard will record, but that is

something for people who believe in facts to check.

What I was talking about before I was rudely interrupted was the issue of

this government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that a television interview?

MR. HARRIS: He told them he wasn't available today, right. Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: Will that be prime time?

MR. HARRIS: Oh, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, what we have is a government which is hiding

behind the mantra of there is just no more money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He doesn't care where it is as long as he can bring the

crowd, right? Mr. Chairman, this is a government who on the one hand talks about

how there is just no more money for the people who need money, and on the other

hand find money for every project they want to find.

We have before us a bill to allow government to raise $200 million, plus the

rejigging of additional monies to redeem outstanding securities. We don't really

know how much it is. I suppose at some point, I mean, in order to justify the

passage of the bill, the minister is going to tell us a little bit more about

it. I gather he didn't tell us much about the bill when he introduced it, but

perhaps he can explain to us how the government reduced the provincial debt by

$900 million in the last several years without getting the Reform Party award

for fiscal prudence. Because if that had taken place in any other province of

Canada the Reform Party would be saying yahoo!, bravo! They would be supporting

this government like no other across the country.

What is happening, the point of my remarks, is that there is flexibility in

social policy, there is flexibility in government programs, there is flexibility

in government's ability to respond to the needs of the people. They showed that

last week when they reversed the claw-back on social assistance recipients as a

result of the request of the public of Newfoundland, the ordinary people, who

have been petitioning this House. The Catholic Women's League of Topsail, for

example, petitioning this House, demanding that government respond to the plight

of people on social assistance; other people too, including this hon. member,

who identified this as an outrage on the day the Budget was brought down; an

outrage to take back the money that was going to improve the lot of children on

social assistance and use that money for others.

The ability of the government to change that policy is evidence that the

government's fiscal capacity is far more flexible than they let on on Budget

Day, and that they let on every time they want to say no. Every time they want

to say no they simply say the money is not there. That is the mantra, the common

excuse, the one that they seem to be able to get away with because the people

have been propagandized not only by this government but by Paul Martin in

Ottawa, by the business council on national issues, by the Tory Party before

them, by the Reform Party, by the bankers, by the industrialists, by all -

AN HON. MEMBER: By the lawyers.

MR. HARRIS: What lawyers? I don't think the lawyers had anything to say

about it.

MR. CANNING: What did Bob Rae do in Ontario?

MR. HARRIS: A very sensible government, I say to the Member for Labrador

West. A very sensible government was conducted by the NDP in office throughout

this country, and they respond to the needs of the people, Mr. Chairman. They

respond to the needs that the people have and the people expect a response from

government, Mr. Chairman. What is government for? I say to the Member for

Labrador West, what is government for? To respond to the needs of the bankers or

to respond to the needs of the people? The stockbrokers or the people?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, the member says the people and I think he is right.

Those are the people that the New Democratic Party responds to, Mr. Chairman.

Those are the kinds of people that our party responds to, the people, and they

are one.

With respect to the bankers, let me just talk about the bankers for a moment.

Where does the hon. member stand with respect to the bank mergers? Is he with

the