November

25, 1997

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 Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. House that a

very important international conference is being held here in St. John's over

the next several days on sealing. This conference, which is being hosted by the

Province, is being held under the auspices of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal

Commission, and is being attended by approximately 250 delegates.

Representatives from the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and a

number of other countries and regions, will be attending.

Mr. Speaker, this conference is being held at a critical

period in the revitalization of our sealing industry. The conference clearly

demonstrates the commitment of this Province, the federal government, and other

countries to a sustainable seal harvest.

Mr. Speaker, several representatives of the IFAW will be in

attendance at the conference. This group has made a public statement implying

that this conference should not have been held on Canadian soil. I want to

advise this hon. House that the IFAW will stoop to no end to discredit the

sealing industry. They have been given the opportunity to observe and

participate in the conference; yet, having registered, are now saying that the

Mr. Speaker, we are proud hosts of the NAMMCO Conference on

Sealing. The IFAW, for its part, will not undermine our efforts to revitalize

the sealing industry. Indeed, the transparency of the NAMMCO Conference clearly

demonstrates our commitment to develop this industry.

The seal industry does not belong in the past, but will

become a critical component of our rural economy in years ahead. From this

perspective the IFAW should turn its attention to more serious concerns, such as

the concern over communities devastated by the groundfish collapse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We over here on this side as well would like to be part of

this conference that is happening right here in this Province. Not only are we

the proud hosts; I think I would say to the minister that we should be the

natural place for this to take place, and I commend the minister and I commend

the people opposite for allowing this to happen, and for going about and being

vibrant in order to bring the sealing industry conference right here to our own

Province.

Here is an opportunity that exists to employ thousands of

rural Newfoundlanders. In my own district alone, there is a mood of optimism,

right in Catalina, where an individual has gone and taken a plant that was

closed up there and now turning it into a seal manufacturing plant and a seal

oil manufacturing plant and it is going to employ hundreds of people and I am

very optimistic about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. Does the hon. member have

leave?

MR. TULK: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: But we have to be cognitive with the fact

of who those IFAW people really are, Mr. Speaker. Those are people out to raise

funds to go in their own pocket. Those are people out playing on the emotions of

people. We see movie stars, we see, supposedly, Newfoundlanders names attached

to being part of this IFAW. I would be concerned if I saw a fisherman from

Bonavista Bay or if I saw a fisherman from Twillingate supporting them. That

would cause me great concern.

I compliment the minister. Do whatever you can to expose

those people for what they really are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to support the statement by the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture and commend him on his efforts in the area of promoting the seal

fishery in this Province. This conference is rightfully being held here in

Newfoundland and Labrador and I want to say to the IFAW, they should consider

that a very important part of the ecosystem that is having trouble surviving

right now, are the Newfoundland fishermen and fisherpersons, plant workers and

our communities. If they are concerned about the ecosystem, they should be

concerned about us as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

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

and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues of the successful

signing of the agreement for phase two of the Western Newfoundland Model Forest

Project on the West Coast.

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, the federal government and the

Model Forest partners signed an agreement in Corner Brook, which will see the

federal government contribute $500,000 a year to the Western Newfoundland Model

Forest. This contribution will be matched by the Model Forest partners for a

total of $5 million to be spent over the next five years. This represents a

significant commitment on the part of all partners to the work of the Model

Forest.

The local partners who will be providing the matching funding

include: Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., Sir Wilfred

Grenfell College, the City of Corner Brook, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Trappers Association, The College of the North Atlantic, Forestry and Wildlife

Divisions of our department, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans,

Gros Morne National Park, The Humber Arm Environmental Association and the

Canadian Forest Service.

The thrust of the phase two work plan is implementation of

the integrated resource management plan developed over the past five years with

the model forest partners and the public - and I would like to emphasize that

this will be an action plan in the next number of months.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement presents both a challenge and a

great opportunity for the partners to move forward, forming the foundation for

research and development of integrated resource management plan prepared over

the past five years.

Earlier this year, our department announced the release of a

twenty-year forest management plan. In this plan, we outline the department's

new approach to forest management, the adaptive ecosystem management approach.

This approach addresses a long-term health of the forest

ecosystem through the management of the range of values for the resource, such

as, wood fibre, wildlife, tourism, recreation, clean air, and water resources.

However, we are looking to the Model Forest to help us meet the challenge of

implementing this new ecosystem approach to managing this Province's forests.

Mr. Speaker, the Model Forest project has the opportunity to

provide the `model' for integrated management for the rest of the Province, and

we look forward to seeing it work out to be very successful. Mr. Speaker, this

will be a knowledge transfer and communications process, and we look forward to

seeing the Model Forest not only for Western Newfoundland but for the rest of

our Province.

I would ask the members of the House of Assembly to

acknowledge the work of the government and non-governmental partners, Mr.

Speaker, in the Model Forest process, and we look forward to seeing this

agreement work out quite well for the future, and further agreements to be

signed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

After last week's fiasco, the Minister of Mines and Energy

announcing a project on behalf of Iron Ore Company of Canada, a forty-year-old

announcement, the government press releases have been turning out machines again

and now we see the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods announcing an

announcement that was made exactly one month ago, Mr. Speaker.

Now if the minister were serious, and he wanted to put in

place a Ministerial Statement today that dealt with a model forest and with the

future of the forest industry, he would be talking about harvesters and how

indiscriminately, Mr. Speaker - how indiscriminately they are single-handedly

raping our forests, how harvesters themselves are single-handedly replacing

twenty to thirty people who would be normally employed in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, if this is all the minister is going to update

the House on the future of the forestry industry, I say that the forestry

industry is not only in bad shape but is in very, very poor hands, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

leave.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Government Services and Lands

is extremely concerned about continuing breaches to the ATV regulations. Current

regulations have been successful in reducing damage to our Province's wetlands

and barrens, there are areas where certain individuals seem to have complete

disregard for any of these regulations.

During a recent helicopter patrol, eight tickets were handed

out, seven for violations of the ATV regulations and one for violation of the

wildlife regulations. The patrol encompassed an area from Witless Bay Line,

north to Placentia, and from St. Bride's to North Harbour in a west-east

direction. A ninth violation is under investigation. During a second patrol of

this area two days later, two more tickets were handed out for ATV violations.

Mr. Speaker, our wetlands must be protected. They are

inhabited by many aquatic, animal, bird, and unique plant species; they reduce

flood levels in rivers; and they provide us with a wide range of environmental,

tourist and social benefits. The Department of Government Services and Lands

will not tolerate abuse to the wetlands of this Province. We want to send a

clear message to the violators that they will be prosecuted.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the many dedicated

people in our Province who are committed to protecting our wetlands and thank

the majority of ATV users who respect these regulations. 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 first thank the minister for a copy of his

statement before the House sat today.

Mr. Speaker, these Ministerial Statements are becoming a dime

a dozen, a farce, media attention-getters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: All this statement does, Mr. Speaker, is

let us know that the Minister of Government Services and Lands is in the House

of Assembly, that is about it. I will tell him, Mr. Speaker, this government was

warned of the problems with respect to the ATV regulations before they were

implemented.

The Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne went around and held

public hearings on this and he made a report - we have not seen the report. I

think two years ago he presented a report to government and he had some

recommendations within that report. We are still waiting on it. No wonder the

people of the Province are getting tickets they should not be receiving, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House

today about a new business organization for women that was launched this month

with assistance from my department.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Organization for Women

entrepreneurs is a not-for-profit organization with a mandate to provide

entrepreneurship and business development services for women throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is called NLOWE for short.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure many members will be familiar with the

former Women's Enterprise Bureau, or WEB, as it was called, that was established

here in 1989 as the first organization of its kind in Canada. The Women's

Enterprise Bureau assisted more than 6,000 women and eventually helped create

700 full-time jobs in small businesses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The new Newfoundland and Labrador Organization for Women

Entrepreneurs is the successor organization to WEB. It is a more streamlined

organization with an expanded mandate of assisting not just potential

entrepreneurs, but also existing businesses owned by women.

The prime movers of the new organization are five regional

facilitators located in home-based offices across the Province. These five women

will travel extensively throughout their regions to assist women entrepreneurs

in the following areas.

They will facilitate the start-up of viable small and

medium-sized businesses.

They will provide appropriate counsel, advice, and support to

women business owners and managers through a network of private business

consultants.

They will facilitate the transfer of business information to

their clients.

They will assist women business owners and managers to

identify the skills and knowledge they need to succeed and identify sources of

training and financial support.

Further, NLOWE will work with other community economic

development groups. In particular, they will work with the twenty Regional

Economic Development Boards as a resource to the boards, and they will encourage

women to participate in community economic development generally.

In addition, the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization for

Women Entrepreneurs has also hired a micro-business lending co-ordinator to

organize a lending circle in the St. John's area. They will be benefiting from a

joint venture between my department and the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation

of Co-operatives, the Collective Enterprise Development Program which I

described in my statement to the House Friday past. If this project is

successful, NLOWE intends to set up lending circles in rural areas of the

Province.

I am confident that this program will be an effective

economic development tool for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This program will

help foster entrepreneurship and new business start-ups by women throughout the

Province. It will help to diversify our economy. It will also result in new jobs

being created in communities in all areas because firms led by women are

creating jobs at four times the average rate across Canada.

I am pleased that my department through the

Canada-Newfoundland Strategic Regional Diversification Co-operation Agreement

has been able to contribute $244,261 to assist in the formation of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Organization for Women Entrepreneurs. The overall

budget is $1 million with ACOA being a financial partner as well.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Organization for Women Entrepreneurs is an innovative and focused approach to

the needs of women entrepreneurs in this Province, particularly in rural areas.

It is a welcome addition to the array of services available to businesses, and

it will help my department meet its prime objective: the development and renewal

of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will join

with me in wishing this new organization every success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I was at the launching of

NLOWE and I know the people leading the charge on this initiative. It is not

always easy for women to get involved in business on their own. There are a lot

of wonderful success stories from women who have been assisted by the Women's

Enterprise Bureau and NLOWE, and I feel certain there will be many more success

stories.

This organization has done a great deal to encourage the

entrepreneurial spirit of women, both in urban and rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I commend them. Now, if I could only commend the government for

their provision of services for women generally.

I remind the minister that his government is fighting, in the

courts, a tribunal ruling on pay equity that simply asks the government to live

up to its agreements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: I remind the minister of his government's

refusal to provide funding for women's centres in the Province, despite the fact

that staff at these centres provide invaluable resources for women throughout

the Province, and often help women escape situations of family violence.

I remind the minister of his government's claw back of social

assistance from single parent students, again mostly women.

I remind him of the freeze on student aid, coupled with

skyrocketing tuition fees which are preventing many of our people, including

women, from realizing their potential.

I remind the minister of statements which his colleague in

health made at a recent women's forum, urging us to think prevention when it

comes to health care. I remind him of this statement in light of his

government's refusal to increase social assistance funding and in light of

health care cuts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: I remind the minister of the increase in

domestic crimes that has accompanied rural decline and out-migration, and the

fact that the victims of domestic crimes are usually women.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: On and on I could go.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have

leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The statement of the minister concerning the Newfoundland and

Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs is welcomed by me and the New

Democratic Party. It is encouraging to see that the government is recognizing

that the models of development of women enterprises that have been tried in

other places and working and have worked here are being encouraged.

It is good to see that government recognizes that the success

rate in women-run enterprises is very high, and that a program to eliminate

barriers to success is very important and very necessary. I would urge the

government to go further and ask their partners in Ottawa, in the Government of

Canada, to insist on some sort of program by the banks to reinvest in

communities in this country where they make all their money. To insist on a

program where they reinvest some of their

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - capital and profits -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - in enterprises, and particularly women's

enterprises.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

are for the Minister of Health. Last week in this House I brought up the issue

of cardiac surgery waiting lists. I asked the minister what is she planning to

do to decrease this ballooning list? The minister said the reason the list was

so long is because of improved technology. She also went on to state that

responsibility for establishing this list rests with the doctors and that it was

not her responsibility.

I would like to tell the minister that she is the one who

holds the purse-strings. She does have a responsibility to allocate appropriate

funding for cardiac surgery. Yesterday she stated publicly that politicians

should not interfere in the waiting list, and I say to the minister that no one

has asked her to do so. What we, and the hundreds of people waiting for cardiac

surgery, would like to know is how she plans on dealing with this list and

getting it under control.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to

the member's

preamble I would like to ask the question: Is this the same member

who criticised this government's allocation of a new $3 million into the Health

Care Corporation to cope and to try and address these very same issues? Is that

the same member, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I said publicly yesterday

when I was interviewed by the media on this very sad incident, I certainly

raised the issue of the number of initiatives we have been doing to try to

address the problem: working with the Health Care Corporation, allocating new

money; much to the chagrin of this member, who wants to attack the politics of

the issue rather than deal with the health of the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a nurse you

should know that you don't apply a band-aid when we need major surgery, I say to

the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked yesterday to

hear the minister give such a dispassionate response to the media on hearing

about a protestor who collapsed at St. Clare's and blaming the fact that she

can't do anything because she is a politician. That is what the minister said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what she said. I ask the minister

today, as a former nurse and a former head of the nurses' union, if she has lost

all compassion for people in the system? This man yesterday was waiting five

weeks in hospital, Mr. Speaker, and was calling on the minister to do something

to decrease the waiting list. Now, I ask the minister why she is now placing a

higher value on saving money these days than on saving people's lives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

response to the member's

preamble I would say for his information I'm an active

nurse. I spoke yesterday to the media with great empathy for the family, and I

made it quite clear that this government has done a list of things which I will

review in a minute. But I also made it clear the day a politician interferes

with a lineup for cardiac surgery is the day we have lost it in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the

question, after addressing the

preamble.

I would like to review what we have done, Mr. Speaker, in

response to the question. We have done the following: we put up over $1 million

last year to make renovations possible for the ICU to increase the beds from

fourteen to seventeen beds. We have allocated a new $3 million, Mr. Speaker, for

dedicated cardiac - Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to listen to what I am

doing. I think if he asked a question he should at least listen.

We have put an additional $3 million, Mr. Speaker, to develop

a new dedicated cardiovascular unit for the recovery of cardiovascular patients.

In addition to that, we have announced that there will be dedicated beds

available with these new renovations that are on time, Mr. Speaker, and will be

ready to start in January.

I have also said, Mr. Speaker, that we are actively

recruiting a new cardiovascular surgeon. We have tried to accommodate the extra

people beyond six months. We approached over 101 patients, Mr. Speaker,

forty-one of them have taken us up on that offer. When we approached Nova

Scotia, who had the same problems that we had, Mr. Speaker, we then approached

the Ottawa institute and they are accommodating us to try to reach that fifty.

As of November 21, Mr. Speaker, we had 385 cases done, in addition to the ones

we are currently doing and will continue to do until December.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We will in fact have more done this year

than we did last year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why increase from fourteen to seventeen, I say to the

minister, you cancel two and three every week of cardiac surgery? That is what

you did; you cancelled the equivalent of the increase. How do you expect to

catch up on a growing waiting list? That is what the minister did. Yesterday,

Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that her department has approached over 100

people, she indicated, and forty-one have taken up the department on their offer

to go out of this Province. I ask the minister, will you confirm today that the

people who have been added to the waiting since March 1 of this year - that is a

period of nine months - that approximately 400 people who have been diagnosed

since then and added to that list were not given the opportunity to go out of

this Province as an option for cardiac surgery?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we made a decision in this

House of Assembly and announced it at that time that we would go to the people

who were waiting longest for cardiovascular surgery. We are not going to send

urgent people on a plane outside the Province. We met with the cardiovascular

surgeons and we made a decision based on their recommendation. I, as a

politician, did not say, you can go or you cannot go. We have to rely on the

expertise of the surgeons to make that decision. They are not going to send an

unstable person outside the Province, Mr. Speaker. I ask the member across the

House to have some respect for the decisions made by the professionals involved

here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would also say that I, as

minister, do not cancel surgeries. If we have a car accident that comes in with

major head injuries - with one tertiary care hospital in the Province to deal

with head injuries - if they need the ICU bed I think anyone out there would

understand, Mr. Speaker, that I don't set those kinds of priorities and nor

should I. We have to count on the physicians and the doctors to make those kinds

of calls. We are working towards trying to accommodate the number of increase in

cardiovascular surgeons that we are trying to put in place but I would say, Mr.

Speaker, if the member across the way had done any research, he would recognize

the same debate is happening in Nova Scotia and the same debate is happening in

Ontario. We don't hold a monopoly on this, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - but I can assure you, we are doing our

very best, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister just said that anybody diagnosed and added to

the list since March 1, is urgent. If you are waiting nine months for surgery

the medical definition of urgency is forty-eight hours, I say to the minister.

People since nine months and eight are waiting on this list. An estimated almost

200 people are still waiting after eight or nine months. If that is urgent,

minister, there is something wrong with the system. There is something wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, she has indicated

that she is doing everything she can, it is very difficult, I say to the

minister, to wake up from cardiac surgery in familiar surroundings, not say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister, would she allow family

members to accompany the sick person who needs cardiac surgery outside this

Province, so more people can take up the offer, rather then have to go out of

the Province alone in a foreign area and to wake-up out of cardiac surgery with

no family around?

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

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

I would like a chance to address the member's

preamble before

the question.

I have to concur with Sister Elizabeth, when she said one

time, `He does not know what he is talking about.' I believe it; I really

believe it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I just heard the member across the way

identify a definition of urgent. Now the man is a diagnostician, as well as a

politician.

I have to say that, the way a person is diagnosed for cardiac

surgery is based on a number of things. Whether it is a valvular replacement or

whether it is the percentage of blockage in a coronary artery, but Mr. Speaker,

the member across the House does not diagnose based on time frames.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I get my

definitions from medical specialists, I say to the

minister, from medical specialists. That is where I get my definition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. I do not get them from the

minister or for somebody in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the minister's responses and her department's

actions on this matter are shameful, I say.

Now, when patients are fed up waiting because they are too

long on a wait list that they risk their health even further by protesting, it

is time that the minister acknowledge there is a problem and tell the people of

this Province what she is going to do about it.

Now, I ask the minister again, I ask this question for the

240 people that are on the waiting list today for cardiac surgery in this

Province, when is she going to allocate appropriate funds to reduce this waiting

list? Tell us minister.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think we have said loudly

and clearly that we are concerned and that we have put dedicated funding, much

of which the member across the House apposed, to help address the issue of

cardiovascular surgery. We in this Province have acknowledged it is a problem

and that is why we have put in a million dollars last year, a dedicated $3

million, we are recruiting a new cardiovascular surgeon; at the end of this

year, we will have done more than last year, Mr. Speaker.

We have acknowledged it and I cannot say often enough, I

empathize with the family, I sympathize with what they are going through, I know

it is extremely difficult to be waiting, but Mr. Speaker, the doctors and the

nurses make the decisions and when the beds are available and when the surgeries

can be done, that is when it is done.

We have acknowledged it and I think people will acknowledge

that we have said that it was a problem and we have tried to address it. We have

tried to keep the politics out of it, Mr. Speaker, by helping the people that

need the help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have questions today for the Minister of Government

Services and Lands regarding the new policy on the private on-sight sewage

disposal and waste water supply, which becomes effective on December 31, 1997.

Can the minister explain the new policy and why this new

policy is required at this time.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new policy on sewage disposal: I cannot explain it

without having it in front of me because I have not looked at it for the last

few days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to - if he wants an

answer, all I can say is that the new policy is brought into place because it is

more effective to have private individuals out there working, designing systems

that government need not be involved in. Government is there to inspect how

systems are done; we should not be designing systems ourselves and then

inspecting them ourselves. We need the private sector out there to develop

these. We will do the inspections on them, and we feel that it is appropriate

for people who want sewage systems put in place to pay for those and not have

the taxpayers of the Province foot the bill for all of the sewer systems that we

put in for cabin lots in the Province.

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

supplementary.

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

Can the minister confirm that this is an essential service,

particularly for rural Newfoundland, and also confirm an extra $500 to $1,500

per new home builder as an extra cost? The minister's actions could actually

cost new home builders in this Province, mostly young people, anywhere from $1

million to $2 million this year, in total.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the anticipated cost for each

individual sewer system will be approximately $400; that is for cabin lots. Mr.

Speaker, for anyone who wants to build a cabin, I am sure that the extra $400 is

not going to make a difference as to whether or not they do the building.

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the minister, he should check his figures before he

gets in the House of Assembly and starts quoting figures, I can tell you that.

Mine are correct.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree that this new policy

will cause more red tape, slow the building process, and that rural areas with

no water and sewer services will be hit the hardest? That private consultants

will be hired to do it, and their travel time from their office to the more

remote areas of the Province will actually drive the cost up? And that

basically, if you sit back and size it up, this is just another step to force

young people out of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the first part of the question, it will actually

speed up the time in which an application is approved, because now the

application will be approved on principle and the testing will be done following

the approval in principle.

In regard to it affecting the rural areas, when you design a

system for septic tanks, it does not matter whether you live in a rural area or

an urban area; it is all the same. What we are basically talking about is the

design of septic systems. It does not matter where the actual application is

made.

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

South.

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

are for the Minister of Health.

The Province's health care sector today is in utter chaos

because of the absolute lack of planning by the minister responsible. Yesterday

I pointed out for the minister the Auditor General's Report on the Health Care

Corporation, which revealed that the department plans to save money needed to

pay for hospital restructuring by closing over 300 beds and sending people home

sooner. Yet, the Minister of Health has just admitted that her department is not

ready for the shifting of community care.

I ask the minister: Why did the Minister of Health do no

planning whatsoever before signing on to a policy of closing hospital beds and

sending people home sick? Does she, the former head of the nurses' union, think

that kind of behaviour is appropriate for a Minister of Health?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would assume this is the same member who yesterday asked

the question, if sending patients home earlier created increased infections. I

have to say, not only does it not create more infections but the health care

organization has a percentage of 2.7 per cent infections when the national bench

mark is over 25 per cent. So, I presume that kind of statement is similar to

this one, unfounded and anecdotal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Absolutely not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another lack of planning, of course, is in Gander where we

have seen the government just halt construction on the hospital there and spend

much needed health dollars in closing in something before it rusts out. Why did

the minister wait until after the Gander Hospital restructuring started? I ask

the minister today: How much money have we spent in closing in this facility in

Gander now? And why did we spend this money and then afterwards do the planning

for that area for Central Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, again I think we need to

stick to the facts rather than the anecdotal stories that we are hearing every

day here and I urge the member to get the facts before he comes forward.

I also say, in response to the question, Mr. Speaker, that

the member across the House knows, I am sure, that the Canada Health system is

based on institutional funding, inside physicians services. Every province in

the country, Newfoundland particularly, has put dedicated funding into the whole

concept of community development and, in fact, Central Newfoundland is one of

the first in the Province and has set the template for single-entry system and

for their community development system.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is happening right across the country. We

have put dedicated money into our community resources and we will continue to do

so, to provide an increase in services for the people in all of the Province.

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister another lack of planning in the

Bonavista area when a government spent $1.4 million on the Golden Heights Manor

to build ten new beds that the government now will not open.

Does the minister remember being head of the Nurses' Union,

condemning the government for acting without consultation, without planning, and

wasting precious health-care dollars in the process? Why has she so quickly

turned from an advocate for health care reform to an obstacle to health care

reform in this Province?

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

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

I would ask the member across the House to retract his

anecdotal statements made yesterday: fearmongering and patient infections right

across this Province in a whole issue to do politics, Mr. Speaker, when it comes

to something as important as health care in this Province.

I am talking about health care; he is talking about politics,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, today we are witnessing the wholesale

destruction of the public post-secondary education system. In Gander, the

college has been reduced to four programs. It has eliminated this year

computer-aided drafting, electronics communication, motor vehicle repair, and

all across the Province, dozens and dozens of programs have been shut down in

the public system.

Why, Mr. Speaker, is this minister and this government

abandoning the post-secondary public education system in this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question, Mr. Speaker. I know the members in

the Official Opposition have given the member who asked the question, the Leader

of the NDP, a razz because the real opposition has just spoken, and I expect, as

well, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Official Opposition are so busy, I

guess, lining up in Question Period to try to jockey a position for their

aspirations of being Leader of the Opposition. It was only a couple of days ago

with respect to an issue like this, Mr. Speaker, a real question about a matter

concerning education, that one of the members of the Official Opposition

actually leaned over - I think it is against the rules of the House - and stole

an issue off the desk of the Leader of the NDP so they could ask a question -

because that is where the real opposition is, Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The reality of it, Mr. Speaker, is that the question is a

serious one. I think, with respect to post-secondary education, the evidence

will show that the current Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, far from

abandoning post-secondary education, has made moves in the last couple of years

to make sure that we can guarantee the delivery of good course options in a wide

range of locations in Newfoundland and Labrador to meet the needs of the

post-secondary student body in Newfoundland and Labrador based primarily, Mr.

Speaker, on labour-market-activity research, not on the whims and wishes of what

certain people in certain places wish to have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - but based on real facts and information as

to what the needs are, what the demands are and what the opportunity should be

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

Vidi, a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows the only choice of students who cannot get

into the public college system is private colleges at three to four times the

cost of the public system, paying $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 or more for courses

sometimes of very questionable value. Why is he forcing students who must obtain

an education in order to get work into the hands of private operators, who have

grown by leaps and bounds over the last five or six years, where they must pay

the full cost of the course, plus profit for the owners? Why is he forcing

people into those programs at great personal expense?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to hear the position of the New Democratic

Party with respect to their total, unabashed, unashamed opposition to the

private post-secondary education system in the Province. At least it is

consistent with a policy point of view that they have contemplated and stayed

true to for some years. I am sure we are likely to get a question, maybe

tomorrow or the next day, now that it has been raised, from the education

critic, again a leadership aspirant in the Official Opposition.

We would like to hear the position of the Official Opposition

as to how they feel about the private post-secondary training system. We know

now, for the record, and I think it should be clear, that the New Democratic

Party, as just articulated by its Leader, thinks there should be no private

post-secondary training in Newfoundland and Labrador. We would be interested to

hear a follow-up question or a comment from the Official Opposition as to how

they feel about it.

The government, for the record, in answer to the question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to finish his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government clearly

feels that there is room, and there should be in Newfoundland and Labrador, for

a healthy mix of options in the post-secondary system between a publicly-funded

system, which we still fund to the tune of $150 million a year, far from not a

public system, and also some options in the private sector, the private training

institutions, that can also fill in some gaps and make opportunities available -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister -

MR. GRIMES: - where the public system is not available.

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

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister will know that since 1991, the enrolment in the

private colleges has increased by over 600 per cent, now to more than 11,000

students. Some are of very questionable quality - in some cases, their marketing

plans guarantee that nobody will fail.

Is the minister prepared to initiate an independent study of

the private institutions to examine: one, the quality of instruction and

qualifications of instructors; two, the value for money of those courses; three,

the success rate for graduation from private institutes in obtaining employment;

and four, the student loan or other debt level of private sector graduates? Will

the minister institute an independent study of these questions?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the question because it is a serious one.

The hon. member, as Leader of the New Democratic Party in the Province, recently

indicated he was not that interested in being here anymore. He would like to run

something. Even though he did not get a chance to run St. John's, and he is not

going to run the Province being with the New Democratic Party, if he ever ran

anything - because the members opposite, not these particular individuals, but

the people who preceded them, did run the Province for a period of time.

They did deal with the issue of the private training

institutions. They, the former government of the Progressive Conservatives, did

review each of the issues raised in the question by the hon. member with respect

to the private training institutions. A further review has been conducted by

Liberal administrations since 1989. The issues raised have all been researched.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, what hon. members should know is

that every private training institution that operates in the Province has a

licence to do so from the government. Because the questions just raised have

already been examined and answered through a process that has been in place for

some years to guarantee and safeguard against people being ripped off in

training institutions.

With respect to student indebtedness, which is the last issue

raised -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - tomorrow, all members will get an

opportunity to debate that issue in a private member's motion raised by my

colleague. Also, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - it has been an issue that has been on the

national agenda and

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - will continue to be until we get a further

resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In government buildings, hospitals, including the Waterford

Hospital and so on, many of the quality products that are manufactured and sold

here in Newfoundland and Labrador are not available in most cases. Despite

government's `Manufactured Right Here' campaign, government continues to provide

little incentive for assistance to local manufacturers and producers, to provide

in government institutions. In fact, here in our own cafeteria, Mr. Speaker,

many of these local products are not even available for sale. Can the Premier

tell us what he intends to do to address this problem and to give local

manufacturers and producers the edge, in supplying to government institutions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

gentleman very quickly, that all of us on this side of the House are working

diligently every day to ensure that all of the products being manufactured in

Newfoundland, are being used in this Province insofar as is humanly possible.

That is the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from a number of residents

of Winterton, Trinity Bay - Your Honour's district - and a number of residents

of the community of Springdale who are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Springdale is not in Trinity Bay. I say to

the member, they are not in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Springdale is in Notre Dame Bay.

MR. HARRIS: Springdale is in Notre Dame Bay. I remind the

hon. member that Springdale is not in Trinity Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in Trinity Bay. Now, where are these

names coming from in Trinity Bay?

MR. HARRIS: They are coming from Winterton, Trinity Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you say that?

MR. HARRIS: That is what I said, in His Honour's

district. If the minister were listening he would not even be confused that

Winterton was not in Trinity Bay and that Springdale was not in Trinity Bay but

in a different bay.

These petitioners, Mr. Speaker, are concerned about a serious

matter. They are not concerned about the heckling from the government minister

opposite who does not want to hear about this issue. They are concerned about a

very important issue which is one of the consequences of poverty in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, that school children are going to school hungry. They are

petitioning the House of Assembly to direct the government to establish a

universal, comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland

and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a better chance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are well aware of the

government support for the school children's food foundation. They are well

aware of the government support for a pilot program for a couple of years. They

are well aware of the government's attitude, expressed sometimes by the Minister

of Education, that the voluntary sector should do the job. What they are aware

of, Mr. Speaker, is that the voluntary sector cannot do the job. The communities

that need this type of assistance the most cannot provide the resources to make

a program work. There needs to be, Mr. Speaker, a universal program. To give you

an idea of how unsuccessful the government's program is, there are school meal

programs in only thirty-two of the Province's in excess of 400-and-some-odd

schools. Less than 10 per cent of the schools have access to this type of

program. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace.

We are continuously getting reports, year after year, from

the National Council on Welfare indicating that the child poverty rate in this

Province has in fact increased by 50 per cent since 1989. Now this is a Province

which has supported an all-party resolution in the House of Commons in 1989,

supported by the Liberals, as well as by the Conservatives in Ottawa and the New

Democratic Party, a commitment to end child hunger and child poverty in Canada

by the Year 2000. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not very far away. In another couple

of years the Year 2000 will be here and we don't see the level of progress that

we need in order to feed our hungry children. Mr. Speaker, there are groups in

this Province who are now getting together because they feel they have to have

an organized lobby to speak out for the poor hungry children who cannot speak

out for themselves and to insist that the government adopt a program that is

going to ensure that children can go to school with full bellies, Mr. Speaker,

so they can have a chance, at least, to learn and obtain an education from the

system.

We have lip services given to this and many issues regarding

children, Mr. Speaker. We had a committee on the rights of children and a

committee on children a couple of years ago. We had a report to the government

from Dr. Patricia Canning indicating how serious a problem it is and the serious

consequences to children not being able to learn in school without a proper

nutritious diet. Mr. Speaker, for this program to be successful it requires a

universal component. It requires that it be available in all schools in the

Province so that children will have at least a chance to have one decent

nutritious meal a day and to have access to that so that they can learn from the

educational system and have a better chance for their future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am pleased today to rise again to support the petition put

forward by my friend from Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, this shows that the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, not just those who live in St. John's, but people who live in other

parts of the Province want this government to start paying attention to the

Williams' Royal Commission Report.

Mr. Speaker, I refer for a moment to

chapter 16 of the

Williams' Royal Commission Report, it is called, `Equal Access, Equal

Opportunities', and they have a

section in that

chapter that is called, `Social

and Economic Barriers to Achievement'. What are the first two things mentioned

in Social and Economic Barriers to Achievement? The first one mentioned is

poverty. The second one mentioned is child hunger.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to these because this particular report

has been around for some considerable years. It has been backed up by a number

of other studies. The data for this particular report was compiled in the late

eighties and in the early nineties, but nothing has happened.

In the last year in this House this is my seventeenth time

rising to support or to present a petition on this particular matter, and I

shall continue to rise when the opportunity arises for me to speak because there

is nothing more important in Newfoundland and Labrador today than the condition

of our children.

What did they say in the Williams Royal Commission Report?

They said that the child poverty rate for this Province is the highest in the

country, and they said poor nutrition contributes to poor health. The children

of low income families are especially vulnerable to academic failure.

These are not words that I just say here. They are words that

are backed up by research in the Department of Health, by research in the

Department of Social Services, which was the department at that time, so I say

to all of us here that we had better start doing something about it.

What this petition today says is that the people who live in

Winterton, Hant's Harbour, Brownsdale, and these communities in Turks Cove,

these communities that are out in Trinity Bay, these people have problems too,

and we are saying to the government: Let's make sure every child in this

Province has equal access and equal opportunity, and to do that we have to

address the two points identified as priorities in the Williams Royal

Commission. One was child poverty, and the second one identified was child

hunger.

Mr. Speaker, it is not sufficient for us to talk about it. We

need action. We need bold, aggressive action, and we need it in this Province

now.

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

a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor -

Springdale.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise for a moment to support the prayer of the petition for

two reasons. One, obviously, is that it has been presented on behalf of my

constituents of Springdale. I have read the petition, I have read the names, and

I can tell you that I recognize a lot of the names of people on that petition. I

support it for that reason, and I also support it because I think there is some

validity in the request.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: Like any other program, Mr. Speaker, and it

does not matter what the program is, it appears to me that in Newfoundland today

any program directed - and it does not matter - in most cases those kinds of

programs are administered and sponsored by government, but even if it is

sponsored by the private sector, in most cases rural Newfoundland gets the short

end of the stick in any of those programs. Now that is a fact of life. That

cannot be argued.

I suspect it may be saying that they don't have equal access.

There is no question also, and it goes without saying, that if there is a

problem with children going to school undernourished or hungry in Newfoundland,

then it would go without saying that given the economy, given the battering that

rural Newfoundland has taken with the state of the economy of most of rural

Newfoundland that depends on the fishery, then the chances are that if there is

hunger in the schools in St. John's, in Corner Brook, in Stephenville, in Grand

Falls - Windsor, there would be all the more, one would expect, in communities

whose economies have been devastated and who are struggling right now given the

economic circumstances in most of our rural communities.

I might say this, Mr. Speaker: Almost everyone here would

know, as the minister responsible for the introduction of a School Milk Program

in Newfoundland, it was one of the most appreciated and successful programs.

Minister after minister, from the time that this government implemented the

program, improved on that program. I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is one of

the most appreciated and one of the most valuable programs we have going on. I

would only hope that it would be possible and I am sure the government is

looking at ways of improving the School Lunch Program, but I would only hope

that it is possible to make the School Lunch Program as successful and as

valuable as the School Milk Program has become.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise again today to present another petition protesting the

rate increase at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. The prayer of the petition,

Mr. Speaker, is:

We the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to

petition the House of Assembly regarding the rate increase at Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation on a sliding scale from twenty-five to thirty per

cent.

We are apposed to this increase because of the hardships that

may be endured by tenants and we therefore ask that the decision be

reconsidered.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister has announced that he is

going to reconsider this. The minister had announced that none of the tenants of

housing will be worse off, the working poor, none of them will be worse off then

the people that are receiving full government subsidies. Mr. Speaker, we will

hold the minister to that. He is a fair man, he is probably the best minister on

that side of the House, so we will hold him to that.

Mr. Speaker, I assure you that we will have further petitions

on this. We will be presenting petitions on a regular daily basis and I am sure

that the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing eagerly await the

outcome of the review, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for

St. John's South. We acknowledge on this side that the minister, who the Member

for St. John's South believes is the best minister over there, but we are going

to have some discussion on that a little later on, and with compliments like

that coming from the Official Opposition, I would say your tenure is in doubt.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that the point

here is not that there should be some review of this, but the point is that we

are going from a twenty-five per cent increase to a thirty per cent increase in

one move. The people I have talked to said a twenty per cent increase in their

rent is significant given the fact that, regardless of their level of income and

there are no wealthy people in those units, by definition, there may be people

there who have comfortable means, having an income of, like the minister said

yesterday, having an income of $25,000 or $30,000 is by no means wealthy in

today's society.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that maybe when he

reviews it he should consider to having the matter reviewed both on the matter

of income level, but also consider having it graduated, in other words, moving

from twenty-five per cent to twenty-six per cent in a gradual step process

rather than making one big change in one fell swoop, so that there might be some

more equity and people might understand a little more by having a twenty per

cent increase when pensions are frozen. There has not been an increase in

pensions to the civil service in this Province since 1989. So, most of these

people are receiving provincial pensions or some other kind of pension which

have been frozen for a long time or they are on very low incomes and they have

no wage increases.

So, we say to the minister, if he would, to reconsider the

matter and perhaps not only look at the individual cases, but look at the whole

principle here, is that when everybody else is trying to cope with their bills

and trying to pay their bills with scarce dollars, that these people are asked

to absorb a twenty per cent increase in one step and that I think is what they

find most regrettable and we are asking the minister if he would put on hold and

maybe consider having a graduated process rather then doing it all in one move

from twenty-five per cent to thirty per cent of gross income.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. friends

across the way, do not go giving me compliments like that. If you want the best

minister in the House to stay in the House, don't you fellows go complimenting

him because if a certain fellow should hear that, he will start to question it

himself and who knows, I might get the flick.

In reaction to the Member for Waterford Valley: a single

parent, two children - a single parent, most likely female. Private market

rental cost - they are not renting off us they are renting off the private

sector. They are in Mount Pearl. That person, the average income is $12,671,

that is (inaudible) that is for working, single. Out in the private sector -

these are facts, I can provide all these facts - they are paying 46.06 per cent

of that income to the private sector for housing, 46 per cent. The same person,

getting a subsidy of heat to put on top of the $1,671 - that drives the income

up to $13,873 - he is paying 27 per cent, not 28 per cent or 29 per cent or 30

per cent, not an increase of 20 per cent, he is paying 27 per cent of that

income.

Now, the point I am trying to make to you is that, in the

private sector, they are paying 46 per cent, social housing they are paying 27

per cent, not 29 per cent. You have to remember that everybody in social housing

did not go from 25 per cent to 30 per cent, okay? Social services, for example,

did not move at all, they are still at 25 per cent.

I will give you another example: Single, one person, a

senior, old age pension, the supplement and Canada pension, a little bit of

Canada pension. The majority of our seniors are getting this; $11,891 - that is

what my mother was getting before she died, living in Carbonear - If she were

renting out in the private sector, she would be paying 44.7 per cent - and these

are facts, I can prove it to you - 44.7 per cent of her income, almost half of

her income would go for rent. Now, when I say rent, I mean heating costs as

well.

Just listen to this one: A single senior renting from us pays

29 per cent. Now, `Harvey', I do not have to go any further. There is something

wrong with the system when the poorest people - the poorest people; I am not

talking about - the poorest people are the people on social assistance. But you

have all these people, you guys know, you go out to the mall tonight and go into

WAL-MART or one of those stores - and what are they making? Six dollars an hour

if they are lucky. There are families out there, men and women making five and

six dollars an hour with two and three and four youngsters. And where do they

have to live, I ask the Member for St. John's South? Rat traps, in the center of

St. John's, that is where they have to live, because they do not have enough

money; they do not have the money they need to go out and rent down in the East

End or up in the West End, or Mount Pearl. They do not have the money.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, quite honestly: Who are the people

that we, as a government should be helping? Who are the people we should be

helping? Those are the people, and I say that in all honesty. I will review it -

I told you I was going to review it. There may be some way that I can

accommodate some people who are having some hardships, but you know, you all

know on that side, there are people living in social housing units around this

Province who can well afford to be living in the private sector.

Orders of the Day

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

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

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. M. Penney): Order, please!

Order No. 2, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to take just a few minutes today to talk about

Bill 28 and the approval of certain amounts of money to be spent in various

areas in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go to, of course, health care,

and I would like to take some time today to talk about the personal care home

industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to point out

to this House that it is not probably, it is, the best bang, as one minister

said one time, for your buck in Newfoundland and Labrador on health care in this

Province.

There have been many studies done, I guess, in recent years

on health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I could go back, I

suppose, as far as the Doane Raymond report, but I will go back to the most

recent one which was a report done by Kirby and Company. I am sure there are

copies with the minister. I know there are copies with the minister, because the

Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Homes for Special Care met and

certainly sent a copy of this report to the department. I realize that it has

been, I guess, under review for maybe quite some time.

The health care industry in this Province has been suffering,

and suffering for quite some time. In the Kirby and Company report which was

done last year and submitted, actually, in October of 1996, it pointed out in

that report that in the homes in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador the

people should be paid a minimum of $1,120 per month. Right now, personal care

homes in our Province receive $900 a month, which to me is not right. We have

many people - and I will go through some of them, because some people got upset

in the House the other day because I dare raise an issue where people got

taxpayers' dollars to go into business with taxpayers who are already in the

same business in this Province.

There are nineteen personal care homes in part of my

district, and surrounding it there are some twenty-one personal care homes in

this Province. I have copies of correspondence that were sent to Mr. Randy

Williams, who looks after HRD in Newfoundland and Labrador when we talked about

home cares in this Province. I have copies of correspondence Mr. Williams sent

out across this Island to HRD district directors, in which he stated he met with

Mr. Legge and Mrs. Isaacs, who are two personal care home owners in this

Province - one, Mr. Legge, being the president of the Association, and Mrs.

Isaacs being the secretary. He outlined in the letter how these people felt

their tax dollars should not go in competition with them, and for all intents

and purposes agreed that this money - there would be no way there would be any

federal funding go in competition in this Province with an industry which is now

already suffering.

Some people got upset, as I said, the other day. I really do

not care about that. Because I know personally the plight of some of these

homeowners in this Province. I will just use one gentleman whose wife and he

work seven days a week, long hours a day - and I mean many long hours a day -

who has one son who works with a company and another son in university, who on

weekends are taking their time to work in the family business so that they can

keep the family business afloat. Just imagine, going to university and on Friday

and Saturday nights doing the late shift so that mom and dad can have a night

off. The other son, who is working a full-time job, on weekends and whenever he

can, works in the family business to keep the family business afloat. That home

is not in my district, but it is very close to my district, and I know the

owners of that particular home personally. I know them quite well, and I speak

to them on a regular basis.

I will go to another home which is in my district and who, at

the end of the month, trot down to their bank with $6,000 to pay their monthly

mortgage - $6,000 a month to pay their monthly mortgage - because these people

had the guts and the gumption to get up, to go out, to go to the bank and borrow

the money to build a personal care home. Nobody gave them a hand-out, and no

federal member stood in their house and said, `We don't give money for that, Mr.

Chairman', as one federal member recently did. `We don't give money for that'.

But this lady and her husband, at the end of every single month, go down to

their bank and have a mortgage payment of $6,000 a month.

Now I will talk about another home which is further away from

my district again, on the West Coast of this Province, who goes down to her bank

at the end of every month with a cheque for $4,000 - $4,000 a month - to make

her mortgage payment. I am sure the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne knows

what I am taking about. The Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne represented

part of the area that I did, and I know that he has read part of a report which

was done, I think, by Doane Raymond, if memory serves me correct. I am sure he

is well aware of the plight of personal care home-owners in this Province, well

aware of the plight of these home-owners, of how much money these people have

had to spend in recent years to upgrade their homes, but all done on their own

initiative, all done on their own backs and their own sweat because they went

out and raised their money, had a chartered bank, or the Federal Development

Bank or wherever, they went out and raised their money, and at the end of the

day these people will have to go back and pay that money back to a chartered

bank in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The home-owners' association, as I told you, met with HRD,

and HRD said, it is wrong - it is wrong - to use your tax dollars to go into

business with you. It is wrong. Yet, we find that $500,000 of taxpayers' money

went into private industry to go into competition with industry that was already

there. Five hundred thousand dollars went to a group of people who did not have

a licence, who did not submit a licence. Yet, it is very interesting to note

that when the federal member stood in the lady's home in Larks Harbour, he told

her, `There's no money for this'; and relatives of the fellow who got the money

was with him, stood up with him, stood up in the home with him when the

questions were asked. This lady, being very proud of her home, took him on a

tour of the home and showed him everything that was in there and answered every

question that they had to ask. Then the next day he came out and said, `Oh, she

asked about money for water and sewer.' What garbage, Mr. Chairman, what

absolute, absolute garbage. I spoke to the lady when I got out of the House and

the next morning when I came in I spoke to her very early in the morning, she

said no such thing. She never asked him for money to build water and sewer for

her home in Larks Harbour, never asked.

So again, Mr. Chairman, what we have done to the Homeowners

Association in this Province - and people can laugh and say, `well we don't care

about the homeowners in this Province, - and they probably don't, Mr. Chairman.

The homeowners in this Province do not care about him either because he has

never had to do the work that these people have had to do. He has never had to

get out of bed at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. to attend to people in his home who have

been sick. He has never had to do that but these people have had to do that, Mr.

Chairman, and it is wrong. So when Don Johnson's wife and her sister get

$500,000 from the federal government, it is wrong. I said it was wrong before

and I say it's wrong again and I will keep saying it's wrong. I went back the

other day and wrote the federal minister again and I have copied the Prime

Minister of Canada, the members of the Reform Party, the members of the

Conservative Party and the Bloc, I have sent them all copies of what has gone on

in this Province with regard to homeowners in this Province because it is

ridiculous.

Then we have people who stand in this House who do not have a

clue about the homeowner business in this Province, haven't got a clue and can

get up with such rhetoric to try to defend their buddy in Ottawa. What garbage,

Mr. Chairman. But if he wants a tour of homeowners I have nineteen of them. Let

him pick the day and the time and I would gladly take any member from this House

who would like a tour of some of the homes in this Province, out to meet - you

can laugh and you can smile, I say to the Member for Humber East, because that's

your knowledge of the homeowners in Newfoundland and Labrador. Don't you worry,

I certainly will convey your feelings, how you laughed and so on when the issue

concerning them came up in the House. They will be well aware of what you did,

believe you me.

But that is not why I am up today, because of him. It means

nothing to me, Mr. Chairman, but these homeowners deserve better in this

Province. They deserve better. It is the cheapest form of health care. The

minister, I am sure, knows what I talk about with homeowners in this Province.

The minister attended their annual meeting last year in Gander. The minister has

somebody in her department who looks after the homes for special care in this

Province and knows full well of the problems that these people are having. My

only hope, Mr. Speaker, is that when the next budget comes down that in this

Province this government and this side of the House and everybody here can do

more for the homeowners in this Province.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for listening and I

will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand today, Mr. Chairman, to make a few comments with

respect to Bill 28, whereby this government now seeks approval for certain sums

of money for the continuation of its obligation to govern the people of this

Province. When we look at the heads of expenditure we see that some $75,700,000

is being sought by this government in the continuation of its budgetary plan but

specifically, Mr. Chairman, if we look at one department, the department which

stands out above all others is the Department of Education which has an

expenditure of some $32,800,000. Almost one-half of a full amount which is

included in Bill No. 28. When we look at the problems which the people of this

Province are facing, particularly as it relates to rural Newfoundland, we have

to question how this expenditure was warranted.

I had some occasion, as well as other members, to visit a

number of communities several weeks ago and to find out first hand how many

people in rural parts of our Province are responding to cuts or proposed cuts in

education.

I had an opportunity to meet with student councils, the

parent's councils or the school councils, comprised of teachers

MR. SULLIVAN: You were not allowed to have any leaders

over there other than one.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - comprised of teachers and parents and

other interested community minded people at Grant Collegiate in Springdale where

it was clear during this meeting that there is legitimate and genuine concerns

for the future of their schools as they now know it.

They expressed concern of the continuation of programs which

they have held sacred over the past number of years, certainly since that

particular school began and they were talking about programs such as the basic

concept of a library. When a library in that particular school, in that

particular community may be reduced to one-half time, in other words, a library

in a school will be open only fifty per cent of the day. That, Mr. Chairman, is

fatal, when it comes to the well being of the educational interests of our young

people. I say, Mr. Chairman, that is fatal.

They are concerned about the continuing of programs such as

French, music, industrial arts, sports programs, those interests, which as the

Member for Baie Verte alluded to a little while ago, those interests and

programs which are so essential and mandatory in keeping those children in

school.

We also had an occasion to visit the community of King's

Point, not that far away, where the same sorts of concerns were expressed. The

same issues were being raised. What will the proposed pupil/teacher ratio be?

How will that affect a community such as King's Point? How will their school be

directly affected as a result of any cuts which the minister and the Department

of Education may well have in store in the next academic school year?

These are serious questions. These are problems which are

being raised by Newfoundlanders throughout the Province and these are problems

which must be listened to and must be addressed by the minister. How is it, that

today in this Province, there is going to be or at least a proposal exists,

where it is indeed possible that there may be a reduction in the availability of

teachers in these schools in our smaller communities. The very life blood, as it

has been expressed by many members in this House of Assembly, the very life

blood of Newfoundland is the existence and the continuation of these small rural

communities as we have known them throughout the years.

Newfoundlanders as we all know are leaving in large numbers,

Mr. Chairman. They are leaving in huge numbers. Our communities are dying. One

aspect that at least gives hope to rural Newfoundland is the continuation and

existence of one of its primary institutions, namely its school. When a school

disappears that is the beginning of the end, I say, Mr. Chairman, to that

particular community.

I have seen it first hand, for example, in the community of

Long Harbour. A population of some 400 or 500 people which was devastated a

number of years ago at the time of the closure of the Erco plant; the phosphorus

plant, and now today a school which has existed in that community for perhaps

forty or fifty years, is now closed. That school, which experienced an

improvement in its gymnasium at the cost of $250,000 only two years ago, remains

dormant. It is a facility which is of no use, unfortunately, to what was once a

thriving community in rural Newfoundland. Unfortunately, this is an example of

what many communities may be facing.

That is why the citizens of King's Point came out in

significant numbers, I may add, a relatively small community, but they attended

a meeting in significant numbers to voice their concern about the very, not only

existence of their school, I say to the members opposite, but to the existence

of their community.

It is an important issue. It is an issue which has to be

given serious consideration. I'm glad the Minister of Education has just

returned, because he can perhaps comment on an expenditure of some $32,800,000

being dedicated to the Department of Education. When we see school closures,

when we see the reductions in services being provided to students, when we see a

school population in the Province of Newfoundland being reduced from some

160,000 approximately twenty-five or twenty-six years ago to now perhaps

slightly less than 100,000. The question has to be asked, what is the

explanation that the minister can give when in fact we hear so many complaints,

so many concerns being expressed, by the general populace of this Province as it

relates to primary, elementary, and secondary education in our Province?

Another issue which unfortunately has not been given the

attention, or certainly the importance, by the minister in response to questions

last week was on the whole issue of school air quality. Today I had the occasion

to speak with a lady whose daughter attends a grade XII Level III class at

Ascension High School in Bay Roberts. The lady gave me her consent and

permission to use her name, and I will do so. Mrs. Neil was her name.

She has tried desperately through the central office of the

Avalon West School Board to get information relative to the air quality as it

exists at Ascension High School. A fairly basic and I think understandable

question for any concerned parent. Her daughter apparently suffers from

allergies, and her health concerns have been brought to the attention of the

school board central office. However, with no success. The school board has

refused, in an appropriate fashion, to identify the concern that has been

raised.

Several days ago questions were asked in this House with

respect to the important issue of air quality. A very basic question was asked.

Will the minister table in this House the study, the results of the studies,

which were performed throughout approximately fifty-plus schools in this

Province. Information to which the public is entitled. Information to which

every parent and teacher and pupil who is directly affected by the schools in

question, this information is their entitlement.

The minister has refused to table the information, and says

that those individuals with the responsibility of addressing the problem and

hopefully correcting the problem have been aware of the circumstances and deal

with it. I say to the minister that on such a serious issue as to the issue of

air quality in schools, that is simply not good enough. This is public

information. Public expenditure is at stake, public health is at stake. Simply,

why not provide the information to the public of this Province as to the details

with respect to the air quality analysis and the results. Basic information.

In today's Order Paper there is a fairly lengthy question on

the issue of air quality. There is a page or a page and a half in today's Order

Paper whereby questions are being forwarded to the Minister of Education on this

topic. Here is an opportunity for him. In Question Period he refused to provide

the answer. There is an opportunity in today's Order Paper for him to take

seriously those concerns, and to hopefully provide the answers which are being

asked. Answers to questions being asked by the concerned parents, teachers, and

pupils of this Province.

It is an important issue, it cannot simply be swept under the

rug, it must be addressed in a responsible fashion and I say to the minister to

take the request, if not of me, seriously, but to take the request of a Mrs.

Neil whose Level III daughter suffers from allergies, suffers from asthma; there

is a direct co-relation between her health and the quality of air in her school,

at least, take her plea seriously, and find out what the problems are and let

her know, let her daughter know and let the public of this Province know exactly

what the situation is as it exists in so many schools in our Province.

Mr. Chairman, again, the expenditure of $32,800,000 I would

be interested in the minister responding - I realize in general terms because he

perhaps does not have the information before him - but I would be interested in

the minister making some justification for these figures as they are expressed

in the

schedule of Bill 28.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to make a few comments today on Bill 28

which is before the House, and to address specifically the issue raised by my

hon. colleague opposite dealing with personal care homes.

I suspect we both agree that one of the pressing priorities

of government and pressing priorities of all sectors of our society is to

provide comfortable, affordable home care for our senior citizens. I do not

think there is any debate or discussion about that, and I think if my hon.

colleague opposite were to have combined these comments to that point, I think

we could have found a lot of grounds for agreement.

The issue at hand, and I would like to refer specifically to

the situation we now find ourselves in, in the Corner Brook, West Coast area

dealing with a particular application which is presently before the federal

funding which has been approved. Like the hon. member opposite, I think I could

agree that these personal care homes should be built without government funding,

whether it is municipal, provincial or federal. However, Mr. Chairman, the facts

do not support that. In Newfoundland, for many, many years, these personal care

homes have been built using federal funds from many different sources. For

argument sake, Mr. Chairman, under the TAGS Program, the fisheries alternative

component, there are some fifteen homes which have been built and funded in this

Province using that particular program, and I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that, if

one were to look, one would find many examples of a large number of personal

care homes in this Province which have been built with, and using federal,

municipal and provincial funds.

As I say, if I had my druthers, I perhaps would argue

strenuously that, that not be done, and that the private sector use their own

funds and secure their own sources of funding to do these types of ventures but

such is not the case, Mr. Chairman, and when programs do become available,

whether they are under the fisheries alternative program or whether they would

be under another federal program, people do make application and in the fullness

of time, these applications are approved.

What I do take some exception to, Mr. Chairman, is the notion

that there is no need for senior citizen facilities in Western Newfoundland and

in particular in Corner Brook. That statement simply does not bear up under

scrutiny. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the discussions

which have been ongoing for the last little while, we will have found that many

individuals in Western Newfoundland have come forward and said that there is a

crying need, there is a desperate need, for additional personal care facilities.

As a matter of fact, one only has to look into the Letters to the Editor of

The Western Star from time to time and see senior citizens who have come

forward and basically have said that there is a need, that they wish to obtain

and to be able to get into personal care homes at a level and at a cost that

their budgets can afford. There is no doubt that such is required.

In the last twenty-one months that I have been the Member for

the District of Humber East, I have had a number of individuals come to me, a

number of organizations. I recall a group in the Pasadena area, the Humber

Valley Crown of the Valley Senior Citizen's Home. They are repeatedly looking

for sources of funding to extend the number of cottages which they have

available. They have extended waiting lists of individuals who wish to move into

these facilities and to enjoy what we have all come to call `the golden years'.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of funding for that particular level of housing,

they have been unable to expand.

Also, Mr. Chairman, over the last number of months I have

been dealing with an organization in the Corner Brook area, the Royal Canadian

Legion, who are anxiously looking for additional accommodations to house

veterans of the Second World War and other conflicts. They point out to me that

there is a pressing lack of facilities, particularly in Level 1 and Level 2,

where these seniors can go to enjoy, as I say, their golden years.

Quite in addition to that, we have quite recently had the

Deputy Mayor of the City of Corner Brook basically coming out and saying in no

uncertain terms that there is a need, there is a crying need, there is a

desperate need, for additional personal care homes in the Corner Brook area. As

a matter of fact, in the situation dealing with the legion facilities, a couple

of years ago they thought they had the funding and they advertised for it. They

had a waiting list at that time of no less than 171 names of individuals who

wanted to move into that kind of facility.

Mr. Chairman, the point of the matter is that they want to

move into a facility that is close to where they have lived all of their lives,

where their family is. They want to live in a personal care home that is within

the Corner Brook area. They recognize that there are other very good personal

care homes in the Province. There are personal care homes in the Bay of Islands.

They have indicated to me, it is their preference that they be able to stay in

surroundings which are familiar to them.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any doubt

whatsoever that there is a crying need, a desperate need, for personal care

homes in the Corner Brook area. Therefore, it is not unusual. The individuals

concerned looked at this, and they saw that there was a quality business

opportunity here. They made their plans. They went to the various funding

agencies and submitted their applications, and in due course the particular

application for this particular project was approved.

There have been a lot of allegations made that this

application - because one of the individuals concerned was a spouse of a Liberal

Party organizer - a lot of allegations have now been made that because of that

connection there must be, and must have been, political interference.

Mr. Chairman, we have asked on several occasions in this hon.

House for proof that there was. We have asked that there be some information

laid on the Table of the House to demonstrate that there was indeed political

interference, and as of today we still have no such proof. All we have heard is

that we stand by our statements and we believe that what we have said is true.

Mr. Chairman, when such allegations are made, one has to do

more than stand by one's statements. One has to do more than to believe that one

is true. One must be able to demonstrate conclusively that there are and that

there was interference.

Mr. Chairman, one of the statements that has been made in

recent times as to why there must have been interference involved is the fact

that it only took some forty-one working days in which to have this application

approved. Again, we look at the reality of the situation. The reality of the

situation is that in this present year the government that I represent, and I'm

part of, in cooperation with the federal government, introduced a new process

for processing applications to these job creation types of employment

activities.

As a consequence of that streamlining of the process, we find

that the application first must go through a provincial screening and a

provincial certification process. A process it must go through before it goes to

the federal table. As a consequence of that process, the application in question

was in the system some three months. It was reviewed; it was scrutinized by the

officials. The officials made their commentary and they made recommendations

that the application be approved. The application was then sent to HRDC where in

due course - in this case, two and a half months, or some forty-one working days

- the application was approved.

The question is not that it took forty-one days, and that

that was a short time. The reality of the matter is forty-one days was much too

long. Because by the time the application hit the desks of the HRDC officials

all of the background work, all of the analyses had been done. My only

conclusion from the fact that it took forty-one working days is: What took so

long? The work was done; the streamlining of the process had been put into

place. The HRDC officials in Corner Brook and in Ottawa should have had that

application approved much more speedily.

The other point that has come up quite frequently is that the

individuals in question had not yet even applied for a licence to operate the

home. Again, the Opposition member has once again demonstrated that he is not

doing his research; he is not doing his homework. Because if he had done so he

would have found that in June 1996 there was a major transition and major

changes made in the personal care home licensing procedures in this Province. As

a matter of fact, the licensing provision was abolished. There is no need to

have a licence to operate a personal care home. What is required is a

registration process, and in that registration process the first thing that has

to be approved is that the building itself which has been constructed meets all

the required building codes, that it meets the fire and life safety standards,

is built.

The second registration that these facilities must go through

is to ensure and to satisfy the community health boards that they are in fact

delivering a type of care that meets with the standards and the approval of the

Department of Health. Again, this is information which is being submitted and

has been submitted to the health board.

Once the two registrations are in place, and only when the

registrations are in place, can the home be licensed as a certified and approved

facility to operate as a personal care home. Nothing very magical. Just another

one of the many processes that have been introduced by this government in the

last year or so to streamline and improve personal care home facilities in this

Province.

I just wanted to set the record straight. There is in fact

nothing wrong whatsoever with the fact that it took only a few days for the

application to go through the process. That is all in accordance with the

procedures which have been streamlined by this government in the last year.

There is absolutely nothing amiss in the fact that there was no application for

a licence put in place, because no licence is required. Again, a process put in

place by this government in July of last year. Information readily available to

anyone who would make a few contacts within the appropriate departments and get

the appropriate policies.

The last point: While I would perhaps tend to agree that

there is perhaps sometimes too much government money involved in some of these

activities, the fact remains, a large percentage of the personal care homes in

this Province were constructed using monies available from either the federal or

provincial levels. These monies were obtained in the normal course of an

application process and evaluation. To suggest that there was some malicious of

forethought or that there was political interference is getting pretty low and

is starting to get down to the level of very cheap politics.

So once again I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member

opposite produce the proof that he claims he has, lay it on the table of the

House and let us all take a look at it. Thank you kindly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

We have spent about six hours now debating Bill No. 28. In

fact, it is six hours right to the minute. So, Mr. Chairman, we decided to raise

a great number of questions. We have asked the government to respond to these

questions. On the first day the Minister of Finance responded to the critic's

questions but he has not been available to answer questions since then.

Mr. Chairman, the bill requires or asks for the ratification

of $75 million. We on this side have raised questions that concern things like

rural Newfoundland. We have had a great discussion on that. My good friend from

Bonavista South has brought forward the points of view that he has and questions

he raised relative to his critic responsibilities and also a great champion for

the rural parts of the Province. So we would say to the government, we look

forward to the next piece of legislation. We are almost afraid to let this piece

of legislation go because when we look at the agenda for the House we wonder,

`where is the meat?' Because we look at these bills that are being put forward

here we see a great deal of housekeeping things. So the substantial legislation

for the fall, thus far, is this particular Bill No. 28, which is spending

$75,800,000 getting ratification of it.

When we look at the other bills that are here we don't see

much difficulty with many of these things. For example, the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture has a bill here, "An Act To Amend The Professional

Fish Harvesters Act." Now that is purely a housekeeping matter. This requires

very little debate in this House. So we have a situation where we have a number

of pieces of legislation brought forward but we are wondering where is the real

legislative agenda? We are looking for the legislative agenda that would see us

addressing issues in education. We would like to see the new education act, the

new schools act coming forward, something that we could have a very thorough

discussion on.

We would like to see some real strong measures to address

some of the issues that are facing the young people of this Province. We have a

Private Members' Resolution tomorrow coming forward by the Member for Terra Nova

and we will tend to support the initiative. It is the same thing we have been

talking about for the last couple of years, talking about student loans and

greater access to post-secondary education. That is good stuff. We support that

and we will be looking forward to the discussion tomorrow. We will be drawing

from the many times that we have spoken on that particular issue but that comes

up by way of a Private Members' Resolution. It is not going to have any effect

on the legislative agenda of the House. We want to see some real concrete

measures brought forward by the government, not to have the self congratulatory

messages that might emanate in this House tomorrow about all the things we have

done. We want to see some measures talking about things we are going to do and

the ways we are going to address post-secondary education and equal access and

equal opportunity.

We talked here in this House about the children of the

Province and how we have so many of them out there with drastic needs. We have

not seen anything this autumn to look after the needs of our hungry children. We

anticipated that, having raised this matter over and over again in the last year

in this House, we would see something on that. So, Mr. Speaker, when I look at

Bill No. 28, I say: Is this all there is to this legislative agenda for this

fall, the things that we have seen thus far? I say to myself there must be more

to this Province's needs and the Province's need for legislation than what we

see here. We don't see anything.

We looked at the strategic social plan and we talked about

that last year. We were promised in 1989 there would be an economic recovery

plan. We were promised in '89 there would be a strategic social plan. In 1997,

we are still here talking about: we are going to have a strategic social plan.

We are pleased the Minister of Human Resources and Employment said: yes, we are

coming forward with some legislation. We were told last year that the Strategic

Social Plan would be ready by the spring; the work done by Penny Rowe and her

group, would all be tabled and we would be here now talking about real, concrete

proposals. Because in that Strategic Social Plan, we have to address some of the

economic deeds and the disparity that exists between families and regions in

this Province, and hopefully, look forward to some kind of equality of

opportunity. I do not see anything here in the Legislative agenda that talks

about that kind of issue.

Then, we look at the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs -eight years now, we are talking about revisions to the Municipalities

Act. The minister is the first minister, I think, since Confederation, to appear

at five different annual AGMs of the Federation of Municipalities, and that is a

compliment to the minister; he has longevity. However, he has been promising

amendments to the Municipalities Act now - or this government has -for eight

years and we are asking them: Where are the amendments to the Municipalities

Act? Where are the changes? Where is the enabling legislation that was talked

about the year before last when I asked questions about it?

I talked about it last year, and the critic for last year,

the Member for Cape St. Francis, talked about the new legislation for the

municipalities of this Province, but we do not have it and we are told: Oh, wait

until the spring. We will have the new legislation in the spring. Now, when we

come to the spring, we know the primary business is the Budget. The primary

business for the spring session is the financial affairs of the Province. We

will have the Budget then, and we have all the reviews, the Estimates Committees

and all of these things that will take up a great deal of time for members and a

great deal of time here in the House. We were looking forward to an aggressive,

legislative agenda for this Fall session, and what we have is a number of bills

that really, are only just to cross the `ts' and dot the `i's', make a cosmetic

change, in many cases.

Now, there are a couple of pieces there that might engender

some debate, however, I am still waiting for the Government House Leader to

bring forward the real agenda, the real legislation that will try to address the

real needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We are not saying that some of the needs here do not need to

be dealt with, but in terms of what we are seeing thus far, we should have

called this you know, `the housekeeping session' because that is all we are

doing. We are not bringing forward any strong measures such as the Minister of

Finance talked about in his Budget Speech last March, when he said: We have to

take bold, bold measures and we have to attack them aggressively. We are waiting

for the bold measures he talked about in the Throne Speech and in the Budget

Speech and we are still waiting for the minister. So, where are the bold

measures that were talked about last spring? Where are they? Are they here in

this Legislative agenda and -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I am using the notes of the Minister of

Education, of course. But what I am asking is: Where are the measures that were

talked about by the Minister of Finance and by the Premier? Where are those bold

measures that are going to address the real needs of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians? Mr. Chairman, we have now spent a little over six legislative

hours on Bill 28, about six hours and ten minutes or thereabouts, and we are

still waiting. I call upon the Government House Leader and the government to

bring forward those measures that we would like to see the government initiate,

that will come to grips with some of the real problems in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I do not see those.

I looked forward to the session this Fall, because I was told

last Spring that we would have a strategic social plan brought forward, I was

told we would have new municipal legislation, I was told we would have an

aggressive program. Because we believed the Minister of Finance when he said he

was going to bring forward bold aggressive measures to address the needs of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We do not see that; however, we believe that we have probably

spent as much time as we would like to spend on Bill 28 and if anyone else

wishes to speak on this side, go ahead, but I suggest that we call the question.

Resolution

"That is it expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the

public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1997, the sum of

$75,700,000."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution

and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they

have adopted a certain resolution, and recommend that Bill No. 28 be introduced

to give effect to the same.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty

Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1997 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 28)

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2, the hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His

Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: All rise.

To the hon. the Minister of Finance:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit Estimates of the sum required for the Public Service of the Province

for the year ending March 31, 1998. By way of supplementary supply and in

accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these

Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd:

Hon. A. M. House, C.M., M.D., FRCPC

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message, together

with the amount contained in Bill No. 33, be referred to the Committee of

Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mr. M. Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Minister of

Finance, who today was out of the House through illness, it gives me great

pleasure to bring forward Bill No. 33, which is a bill that provides for the

granting of some $353 million to defray certain expenses of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you trying to do - (inaudible)

for us?

MR. TULK: The $353 million, Mr. Chairman - I am sure that

the Minister of Government Services and Lands, and the Member for Torngat

Mountains, probably other members on this side of the House as well, including

the Member for Labrador West, will have a great deal to say about this bill.

This is a bill that enables us, as a government, to receive the necessary funds

to carry on certain transportation initiatives - along with another bill which

has to be passed later - to carry on certain transportation initiatives in

Labrador. It represents a goal, I am sure, that all of those people under the

able leadership of the Premier will be glad to say has finally come.

The hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, a few

minutes ago, the would-be leader from Waterford Valley, the person who finds no

problem with sitting in the Legislature, being the Opposition House Leader for a

Leader, and at the same time, can say in the public press in this Province: I

have not ruled out running for the leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, as everybody in this House knows,

there is a number of us who have been here who have seen a lot of leaders come

in this Legislature and a lot of leaders go.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you more than most.

MR. TULK: Yes, I more than most. Let me say to the hon.

gentleman that I never saw anybody in my life, and I do not believe the Member

for Port de Grave ever saw anybody this low in their life, that they would sit

in the chair next to him, collect the salary over which he has control,

supposedly be his House Leader, and at the same time be whetting the knife,

getting her ready, saying: Oh, no - rule out the possibility? I do not guess I

have. I will tell you this: My Member for Kilbride, the member who represents me

in here, will not make such a statement, even though he is not even the

Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, he said he does not think his time is yet.

He made up his mind right quick and decided: It is over for me, I am not going

to run this time. I will do it some other time maybe, but not this time.

But the Opposition House Leader, the gall! The man who

believes that every word that falls out of his mouth is the honest truth, that

the world is waiting for it, cannot wait for his pearls of wisdom to fall upon

the ground so that we can all stoop down and pick them up, that same man is

sitting over there, reaching behind his Leader's back, and saying: I wonder

where is the soft spot for me to stick the knife in when he taps him on the

back. Just imagine, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will not (inaudible) the Member for

Bonavista South (inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, not the Member for Bonavista South. I will

tell you something about the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. GRIMES: He is going to stab him right in the guts.

AN HON. MEMBER: On TV!

MR. TULK: I tell the Minister of Education this: he may

stab him in the guts, but he will be standing in front of him. I tell you, the

Member for Bonavista South will not be taking the Queen's shilling that his

Leader has control over, sit in the House, tell him how wonderful he is, and at

the same time, sneak off to the press and say: I may yet grace this leadership

race.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Now `Harvey', there is no vote; you do not have

to leave. There is no vote, you can stay in your seat. I say to the Minister of

Education, that is one that comes from a former Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir

by the name of David Gilbert - and I think his saying was: `He who gets paid the

Queen's shilling must carry the Queen's sword', something to that effect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes and defend the Queen.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education interrupted my train

of thought.

MR. GRIMES: Sorry.

MR. TULK: I was talking about sharpening the knife,

getting the blade just so, sitting by the side of your leader in the

Legislature, doing the job over which he has control of, the Leader of the

Opposition, knowing full well that the Leader of the Opposition is in a very

tenuous position over there anyway, knowing that he is very weak, knowing that

the Leader of the Opposition is in trouble in his own party and his House leader

AN HON. MEMBER: Getting paid extra money too.

MR. TULK: Getting paid extra money to try and protect the

back of the Leader of the Opposition, getting paid to protect his back and at

the same time, going out in the local papers and saying: I have not ruled it

out.

I must say to the hon. gentlemen, that I found out the other

morning just how deep he is thinking about running for the leadership of the

party. When we were on CBC radio, he was on one telephone and I was on the other

one and Jim Brown was in the middle and he was so calm, cool and collected,

until I said: Jim, I believe he must be trying to dip his foot into the

leadership walk. Whoo, away he goes, caught him, just like that, away he goes,

spouts off: I'm not important. What I am going to do - Harvey Hodder's political

future is not important'. No, he is right. Harvey Hodder's political future is

not important and I want to tell him now -

AN HON. MEMBER: Taking lessons from the Premier.

MR. TULK: -he has become known in the press, about what

is happening in the House, he has become known as the old grumbler. A fellow

said to me the other day from - I will not say what station he was from - a

fellow said to me the other day: Beaton, he said, what is wrong with him?' I

said: What do you mean, what is wrong with him? He said: he comes in the House

and he asks you for all kinds of legislation, you bring it in and you poke it at

him, then he grumbles about the fact that he does not have time to read it. He

does not have the time in the House and at the same time, he said, we all know

that the Opposition House Leader was the person who wanted the House closed for

three weeks last Easter, Easter holidays last year, the first time in the

history of this House, that an opposition leader ever asked to have three weeks

for Easter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Opposition leader.

MR. TULK: Opposition House Leader, I am sorry. No, not

the fellow who is getting stabbed, the stabber.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: His worship has just reminded me, that he is

use to teacher holidays in the spring, wants to go off - but teachers do not

take that long, do they Gerry?

MR. G. REID: No, ten days.

MR. TULK: Ten days, he is even worse, but I suppose you

could say that he is retired, but in any case he has become known, I say to him,

he stands up over there and grumbles about the agenda for the House. He has

become known as the old grumbler, the man who grumbles no matter what you do,

you cannot please him. He is like someone with corns on his toes, if you step on

them he gets upset.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scrooge.

MR. TULK: Scrooge, no, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Beaton, he is like on of those red things

in the boat you were talking about, he -

MR. TULK: The Member for Bonavista South remembers the

old red gurnet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I knew you would like it.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, they have themselves in a bit of a

snit over there. I sympathize with them because I spent a lot of time, I spent

ten years in Opposition, from 1979 to 1989 and I will tell you something. I sit

here and I say to myself now, I wonder - because I think that politics runs in

waves like most things, it is up and it is down and I sit here and I say to

myself - I wonder where are they. At what stage of that curve are they? What

period of time are they in that we were in from 1979 to 1989? I will tell you,

Mr. Chairman, as near as I can come to it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Right on!

As near as I could come to it, is 1982 in the Liberal Party,

when we were in Opposition, in 1982. They are three years ahead of where we were

from 1979 to 1989, a third year. Now I ask the hon. gentleman; that took ten

years. I am going to make a prediction that this leader will go, but I say to

him in all sincerity that, that is founded on one premise, that there will have

to be somebody to run from outside the caucus because I say to the hon.

gentleman that I do not believe for a minute that there is one person in that

caucus - and I would say to the Member for Waterford Valley: pay attention,

there is not one person in that caucus who can beat him because I will tell you

what I think is going to happen: I think the people who might be able to take a

stab at it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Stab?

MR. TULK: Well we know who is taking a stab. But the

people who might be able to take a successful run at it, those people like the

Member for Kilbride and the Member for Bonavista South are going to sit back and

I think they are going to wait until they become a little bit more experienced

themselves, get better known around the Province when there is a better

opportunity for them to run. The Member for Waterford Valley is seriously

thinking about it and of course, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the man who

leads all polls in this Province in terms of being an Opposition member, the man

who asks the most succinct questions that ever you heard in this legislature,

the man who gets to the bottom of everything and knows the answer to everything

before he asks them, that is what the polls show, that of the Opposition

members, he has gone up another 5 per cent.

MR. FUREY: Is that ten now?

MR. TULK: No, no. He is at forty-four, I say to the

Minister of Mines and Energy, he is at forty-four.

Now, he is going to take a run at it. He is seriously

contemplating taking a run at it but I have something to warn every one of them

over there and this includes the Member for St. John's Centre, who smeared his

copybook last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: St. John's Centre?

MR. TULK: The Member for St. John's East. I apologize,

she is not here but if she were, I would apologize.

The Member for St. John's East smeared his copybook last week

and I have to say to him, lost a little bit I believe on that education

referendum. I believe he did but, there is one thing - I will tell you now that

there is one thing that nobody on that side of the House can beat the Leader of

the Opposition at, nobody, there is no two over there who can beat him -

AN HON. MEMBER: At what?

MR. TULK: At working. He works like a dog, up all night

and up all day and, Mr. Chairman, it is actually

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you make (inaudible) on that side of

the House?

MR. TULK: No, I did not say it, now hold on now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Chairman, it is a sin really, it is a crime. It is a

crime, Mr. Chairman, what is about to happen to the Leader of the Opposition.

They are going to come after him, they are going to stab him in the back; he is

going to come out wounded and

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: It is very relevant, very relevant. Mr.

Chairman, I am not going to carry on much longer but I am just going to say to

the Leader of the Opposition, that he is a hard-working man, he deserves better,

he tries, his heart is in the right place but he has no vision. He doesn't have

the necessary picture in his mind for Newfoundland. Now he is making a few

notes. I can compliment you some more if you want me to. Mr. Chairman, he is

going to come out of this situation, and I hope he stays around. Unless somebody

comes in from outside, he is going to win.

Having given that analysis - and I would ask members to take

out Hansard tomorrow and read it, because this is how it is going to unfold. I

say to the Leader of the Opposition today that I have seen ambitious men in this

House. I have seen men and women do things to their leaders and to people around

them to advance their own cause.