April 28,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 15

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: What is it this time shrimp, crab or what is

it?

MR. EFFORD: Seals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity after the

announcement that we made this morning here in the Confederation Building, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, myself and the member from Baie

Verte, to make a major announcement not only for the Baie Verte Peninsula, but

the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador in a whole new industry that we have been

crying and screaming for years that we should have in this Province.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Armando

Meneguzzo and his staff from Teleos Trading in Italy who we have been working

out an agreement with for the past several months, today we finalized that

agreement and we now look forward to a major industry beginning in an industrial

park on the Baie Verte Peninsula in the former asbestos mine property which will

begin with a tannery. I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker,

that this is a tannery not just for one animal, the seal. This is a tannery that

will encompass animals in Newfoundland, but also importing animals world wide

and phase one of a major industry that will take place using in the beginning

Newfoundland resource and in line with the new policy that we just announced,

that any resource in Newfoundland we should get the maximum benefits, utilize

the resource not to be further processed in some other part of the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: So, I want just to say thank you to the

individuals from Italy and to look forward to a very prosperous venture for

Newfoundland and Labrador and in particular, the people on the Baie Verte

Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The House leader is right, I am spinney today, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to welcome Mr. Meneguzzo and his

Italian delegation and also the mayor of Baie Verte and mayor of Fleur de Lys

who are here today, who played a big

part in this announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a good day for

such an announcement. As a matter of fact, I would even go as far as to say it

is an historical day in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we look

at value-added, we move in a direction that is new. Mr. Speaker, I think all

members of this Chamber have supported the efforts of seal industry progressing

in this Province, I don't think you will get any argument there, for the people,

not just the seal industry but of course the tannery which will be set up on the

Baie Verte 2000 Industrial Park. So it does, Mr. Speaker, and I do commend the

ministers for their help in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: - for their help in making sure that this

came through but the bottom line is that we have to continue on to bring such

industries into this Province, to do value-added and to make sure that we put

people back to work in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: I would conclude, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the first one you are going

to tan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I would like to conclude by saying, not just

for the Baie Verte Peninsula but for the entire Province, the idea of

value-added and this resource. So I commend you, welcome you and congratulate

you. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the Member for

Baie Verte in welcoming the Italian entrepreneurs to the Province and wish them

every success in the venture which is important to us because it does lead to a

full utilization of a very important product in our Province. I don't think we

should let the day go, Mr. Speaker, without acknowledging the role - we expect

government to be involved and that the minister deserves credit for doing that

but the role of the Member for Baie Verte in bringing the parties together for

this important venture. I think it makes the role of a member a valuable one and

I think the member deserves some credit for bringing the parties together in

order to make this happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the

federal government for their announcement this morning that beginning in 1998-99

the Canadian Government will raise the cash floor of the CHST, Canada Health and

Social Transfer from $11 billion to $12.5 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: The CHST cash component will remain stable at

$12.5 billion in 1998-99 rather than fall to $11.8 billion as projected in the

1997 Budget. In all, CHST will increase by about $3.5 billion over the next

three-year period.

Mr. Speaker, this is very good news for our Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, on the basis of current projections, our CHST

entitlements will increase by about $14 million in 1998-99 and $26 million of

the following two years. There will be no new money this year. The Government of

Canada has taken many difficult decisions to help restore the public finances of

the nation. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes the efforts

of the federal government to that end and encourages them to continue to be

prudent in their management. Today, the federal government is able to share the

benefits of their fiscal progress by making a strategic investment in the Canada

Health and Social Transfer. This is where the most pressing needs and concerns

of Canadians lie.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier met with the Prime

Minister for a second time to discuss the challenges and stresses in the Social,

Education and Health sectors in this Province. The announcement today is

evidence of the Prime Minister's understanding of the issues as presented by the

Premier and we are convinced, forms a response to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is

pleased with the additional $66 million in CHST entitlements over the next three

years. This money will assist us in meeting and overcoming some of the demands

which currently exist in our social sectors and we will be responsible in

determining how to spend that money. Health, Education and Social Services are

vital to the well-being of our society, that is why, during the 1997 Budget we

committed to extend the three-year commitment to stabilize funding in the health

care sector to 1999-2000. We provided enhanced funding of $2.6 million to retain

and attract physicians in rural areas and, we provided $7.8 million for a new

hospital at Harbour Breton. We finally provided $24 million to repay all school

board debt and half-a-million dollars for tutoring, for tuition programs to name

but a few of our initiatives. Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is

committed to the Health, Education and Social Sectors. Today we see that the

federal government also recognizes the need for extra cash in these areas.

We conclude by once again thanking the federal government for

making this strategic decision which will greatly assist our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a published plan by the government just recently to

reduce Canada Health and Social Transfer by $3.8 billion between now and the

year 2000 and they are going to put a part of that back. On page 25 of Let

The Future Begin , it is the same figure this government has used today, and

not only did John Charest say it will be $12.5 billion, but he will provide tax

points to ensure there is stable funding beyond that in the future. They have

only come part-way from Jean Charst. And I would like to point out that last

year in this Province there was $87 million taken out of the Canada Health and

Social Transfer from the previous two programs; this year, another $70 million.

We have $157 million less this year than we had the year before last. On top of

that $87 million they took last year, it is, in two years, $244 million less and

they are going to give us back $66 million over three years. One-quarter of what

they have taken in two years they are going to give back in three years, and

they try to get up and pretend it is a good news plan.

It is a plan taken from page 25 of Jean Charst's book; but

he goes further in ensuring that we have the transfers there, and that is on the

top of page 26.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish up?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I am only getting started, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, if there was

every such a thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. There is no leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to put the minister's comments in context, the CHST

replaced the established programs financing and the Canada Assistance Plan which

in 1995-1996 delivered $29 billion to the provinces for post-secondary

education, health and social services. That is now $11 billion. So to go from

$29 billion down to $11 billion, and then to give back $1.5 billion does not

sound to me like good news, and I am surprised to see a smile on the minister's

face when he realizes, more than anyone else, the consequences to this Province

on health, education and social assistance as a result of the federal Canada

Health and Social Transfer. There is no reason for smiling here; it is simple

electioneering.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, wish to recognize the move by the Federal Government

today to increase the cash floor of the Canada Health and Social Transfer from

$11 billion to $12.5 billion. The extra $66 million it will mean for this

Province from 1998-1999 to 2000-2001 is significant and is evidence of the

Federal Government's understanding of the need for more funding in the areas of

health, education and social services.

I rise today to inform hon. members that on Thursday of this

week I will provide details of the Health Care Forum announced by the Premier

last week. We recognize the strain on the Province's health care system, and we

know that there are some specific areas which require our immediate attention.

While money is not the only answer to our problems in health care, the extra

CHST funding will provide more flexibility for government as we determine our

priorities, not only in the health care sector but in education and social

services as well.

The need for this forum has become all the more urgent in

light of today's announcement. While government has shown its commitment to

health care by providing funding for rural doctors, new hospitals and equipment,

amongst other things, new monies are difficult, obviously, to obtain. This

announcement by the Federal Government today is good news for the Province. As

the Minister of Finance has said, we will determine where the money will be

spent and can be spent most responsibly to best serve the needs of the people of

this Province.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating, and it is

noteworthy, that the Premier of this Province has taken a lead and significant

role in dialoguing and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - in discussing this whole issue with the

Prime Minister of Canada. It is substantially as a result of his initiative and

his effort that not only this Province but the whole country will benefit from

the activity he has undertaken, and for the objective that we have achieved

together as a result of this very positive announcement by the Minister of

Finance and the Prime Minister today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for his

statement. I guess I have one question, of course. Where has the Prime Minister

of Canada been for the last four years? It is becoming abundantly clear - why

was there such a delay in dealing with the health care crisis in this Province?

I suppose, because our Premier and, of course, the Minister of Health maybe,

just maybe, wanted to create some sort of scenario for their uncle in Ottawa.

There is no way, of course, that this could be an election goodie. I mean,

absolutely not. Of course, Mr. Chrtien would never do that to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sorry Mr. Minister, but for my book you are just a little bit

too late with this. All we are doing here, of course, is just creating another

forum for the Prime Minister of Canada to come on with some more of his

political patronage to his brothers down here in Newfoundland. That is exactly

what it is. It is another photo opportunity. It is more recycled information

just to keep going along with the training.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Yes, that is right.

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Health, of course, and the rest of us, will

not turn down the money. It is obviously going to be beneficial, but I don't see

it as being astoundingly good news. The former Minister of Health, who is now

the Minister of Justice, when this CHST was being introduced, said this would

spell the end of Medicare as we know it. Now this minister is the one

implementing these downloading decisions, downloading health care onto the

health care institutions, downloading home care on the volunteers, and expecting

other people to take the heat. Well, I think that this minister and the other

doing to the people of this Province, not cheering them on.

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

Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to inform hon. members present that today, April

28th, is being observed nationally as a Day of Mourning to remember workers

killed or injured in the workplace or afflicted with industrial disease.

To commemorate the day, government, the Federation of Labour,

and the Employers' Council, participated in a wreath laying ceremony at noon

today in the Main Lobby of the Confederation Building, East Block. In addition,

government is flying the Day of Mourning Flag at half mast.

Mr. Speaker, government, through the Occupational Health and

Safety Branch of the Department of Environment and Labour, encourages safe and

healthy workplace practices in this Province. In acknowledging the Day of

Mourning, I ask that everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador commit themselves to

the goal of working safely.

Mr. Speaker, the number of lost-time accidents and workplace

fatalities is steadily declining in this Province. In 1994, Mr. Speaker, there

were 6,547 lost-time accidents in this Province and twenty-seven fatalities. In

1995, that number dropped to 6,046 lost-time accidents and twenty-one

fatalities. Last year, there were 5,028 lost-time accidents and fifteen

fatalities. Mr. Speaker, this represents a reduction in lost-time accidents of

23 per cent over three years, and a reduction of 44 per cent in fatalities in

the workplace during the past thirty-six months. While certainly this is a very

positive and encouraging trend, we remain committed to seeing this number

decrease even further.

Mr. Speaker, government, employers and employees will

continue to work together to improve the health and safety of workers and

encourage accident and illness prevention in the Province's workplaces.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask that we remember as well, the

families of victims of workplace accidents or diseases and those who have paid

the supreme price while doing their job.

Thank you.

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

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

I join today, on behalf of the Official Opposition, with the

government and certainly all people in the Province, to acknowledge a Day of

Mourning for injured workers and people who have lost their lives in workplace

accidents.

While it is obvious that we have come a great distance in the

last twenty years in terms of eliminating many workplace hazards and hazards

that exist within our industrial operations of the Province, Mr. Speaker, it is

also equally obvious that we have a tremendous way to go. It is clear, and

studies indicate in an emphatic way that every dollar that we spend on

Occupational Health and Safety, in society today, reaps us back at least $4 over

the long term. The impact on health care budgets, the impact on social services

budgets and certainly impact on society as a whole, certainly is worth that

investment.

Today the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of our party

laid a wreath -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just a minute to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: Today the Leader of the Opposition, on

behalf of the party, laid a wreath to commemorate the Day of Mourning for

Injured Workers and I ask all members in the House, before they retire for the

evening, to say a small prayer for those families who have lost people through

workplace accidents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, by leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was pleased to join with the minister and the Leader of the

Opposition in laying a wreath today at the ceremony in the lobby of

Confederation Building recognizing the contribution of those killed and injured

in workplace accidents and remembering that we have some of the most dangerous

working conditions in occupations in the world; at sea, in the fishing industry,

in the offshore, in the construction industry and in mining. We have to be

particularly vigilant of the need for Occupational Health and Safety and I would

urge the minister, in considering a change to the Workers' Compensation

legislation this year, that some incentive be given to employers who place a

great deal of emphasis on Occupational Health and Safety and revisit a policy

the government adopted a few years ago of lowering all injured workers benefits

and instead return those benefits and place an emphasis on Occupational Health

and Safety which will reduce the cost of Workers' Compensation. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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 Forest Resources

and Agrifoods. Last spring the Humber River Watershed Management Association

accepted responsibility of coordinating the model river planning process for the

Humber River watershed. $75,000 of government funding was provided to work on

this plan to chart the future of the Humber River and the surrounding networks

of ponds, streams, lakes and lands and tremendous effort has been put into

developing this plan. A moratorium on building permits was requested until

issues could be examined from all sides and a publicly supported plan could be

devised. I ask the minister, why has government proceeded, before receiving this

report, to approve two commercial outfitting operations on the Humber River?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, as usual, is

partially right. There was a group put in place and there has been a group in

place for some time in the Humber River region to look after and to put forward

plans as to what should happen on the Humber River but let me say to him, that

at no time have we said to that group that everything is going to stop on the

Humber River while we are waiting for a set of plans, and that's where it is.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Crown lands had agreed, in the interim, to a freeze on

development up to 1,000 metres from the waters edge. In fact, Crown land had

rejected the operation at Camp Nine reef. I ask the minister, why was there

intervention and this rejection reversed?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. gentleman

before, there are a number of groups, there are a number of departments that are

involved in doing this plan, that is part of the process, and when that plan is

finalized and we have gone through all of the processes that are involved in

government for the safety of the Humber River then that plan will be the plan

that will be in effect. Until such time, Crown lands or anybody else can make

certain decisions. I say to him, that all government departments will make other

decisions as well.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A rejection was overturned, I say to the minister and the

minister is well aware of it. In a public alert flyer called, Setting the

Record Straight , the Humber River Water Shed Management Association and the

Model River Planning Group said they had not been part of decisions to proceed

with any development, and they said it seriously undermines public credibility

in the process. They further stated in this alert, if everything is a done deal

and their opinion is not valued, they must evaluate their purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary now. He is getting into

a long

preamble. I ask the member to come to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Do you intend to give

any weight to their report or is it a waste of everyone's time and money?

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

MR. TULK: The obvious answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is

yes.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: A waste of time and money, or are you going

to give weight to the report, I ask the minister, which?

AN HON. MEMBER: A waste of time and money.

I will move on to my next question, Mr. Speaker.

In a letter to you recently from their association, it was

indicated they are working with no support from their local MHAs, and it states

in the letter, in fact at least one member appears to be working to undermine

the process. A look at the applicants might reveal a political motivation, I say

to the minister.

Now, Minister, why are you permitting politics to interfere

with the development of a plan for the Humber River?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could answer his last

question, just to clarify for him a bit more, yes, we will pay attention to

their report. As a matter of fact, along with other people, their report will be

the final one when it is finalized.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman,

there is no political interference with their report.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

Minister, over the last several days, and indeed, the latter

part of last week, I have been receiving numerous calls in my office, as the

transportation critic, regarding the government's plan for a pilot project to

privatize certain operations of the department. Given that government's recent

plan to conduct a private project using the private sector for highway

maintenance, can the minister confirm that the entire District 1, which includes

everything east of Clarenville, will close?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to address this in this forum

today because, of course, there has been some confusion around this issue, and I

think it is safe to say that there is a high degree of concern among some of my

staff on this issue, which we are trying to address internally, as well, through

our department.

In the information circular which my department put out to

all of our employees late last week, we informed employees in our department

that one area that we are looking at as a department as a result of the program

review process is the area of our roads maintenance and operation which, of

course, includes summer and winter maintenance operations. We indicated to our

staff in the circular that we were looking at a pilot project, which would

involve the use of private sector resources for highway maintenance. We went on

to say that this may see a series of private contractors having management for

both summer and winter maintenance for an entire district.

In response to the member's specific question here with

respect to our plans, I want to emphasise at this point that we are developing

and preparing a plan for a pilot project to test out the concept of whether or

not the private sector can deliver on behalf of government, road maintenance in

this Province, more cost effectively then government is able to do internally at

this point in time. We have identified that the Avalon area is the area that we

are doing the cost analysis of at this point for purposes of preparing that

plan. We have also indicated that we have to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to draw her answer to a conclusion.

MS BETTNEY: In terms of a concluding statement, I would

simply reemphasize that we are still developing the details of the plan. We will

have to decide over the next couple of months exactly the territory it will

apply to, the extent of the pilot project, and that will have to be brought

forward for Treasury Board approval. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I assume, Minister, by your answer, that no

final decision has been made. I assume that. I would now like to ask you,

Minister, if we put this pilot project in place, then how many jobs will be

affected by this project, how will the quality of service be affected by this

project, and what will the savings be to this Province? Or, in fact, have we

determined those answers as of yet?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first

answer, we are in the process of developing the plans for the pilot project. All

of that entails determining the quality standards that we will be addressing in

defining the contracts and the tenders. It will include defining and finalizing

the territory that we will be looking at.

Let me say to the member, as well, in relation to information

that we have also provided to all of our staff, we have said clearly to them

that no final decision has been made on whether contracting out will occur. That

is the whole basis for having a pilot project. With respect to how staff will be

affected throughout the pilot project, let me emphasize that any decision

regarding this will take into consideration the obligation that government has

through its collective agreement. The collective agreement under

article 25

simply says that government has an obligation to provide continued employment

for employees who would otherwise become redundant where work is contracted out.

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

MS BETTNEY: All these issues -

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

answer.

MS BETTNEY: - have to be taken into consideration in

developing the plan. These are the things that Treasury Board will look at when

it determines whether or not to move forward with this pilot project, and all of

this will factor into our decision.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, might I say to the minister that

there is indeed a great deal of concern by employees of your department,

certainly from Clarenville east. The number of phone calls I have received from

last Wednesday on is a very clear indication that there is a great deal of

concern out there. I trust, before any of this is put into place there certainly

will be consultation with these employees. We are affecting families here and

family lives, and I think a great deal of concern should be had for these

people.

As well, Madam Minister, I would like to ask you what would

happen with the equipment should we move forward with this pilot project. Will

we dispose of that equipment, would we rent that equipment to private

contractors who may wish to bid that job? Exactly what would happen to it?

Because if it is a pilot project and we are only going to try it for so long,

then certainly goodness we are not going to entertain selling off the equipment,

some of which is fairly new. I would like to ask you, as well, what plans we

would have, or what we would do with the equipment we presently have.

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, in a pilot project, we would not take any action in

designing the project that would put us on a course you could not turn back

from. In relation to the specifics of how we will handle the equipment, at this

point those are some of the details that are being prepared as we put together a

proposal for this project. Simply, I would say to you, as I have said to our

employees, this really is one of the factors that has to be considered. Again,

we would not structure the pilot project in such a way that we could not have

ourselves in a position to go back to providing this internally within the area

of the pilot project.

There is certainly a need to test this out. We realize that,

and in doing so, we have to know that we can come to a valid conclusion on

whether this is an effective way to proceed or not. So at the present time these

issues will all be incorporated into the plans for the pilot for further

consideration. I believe the other point that the member made was, with respect

to the employees and the concerns that they have, and I understand the concerns

that people are feeling right now and I want to say to members of the House

that, in providing this information to our employees, it was to ensure that they

received accurate information first hand, at the beginning of this and yes, they

will have a real opportunity to provide input as this goes through.

My officials have met with Mr. Curtis, late last week; I will

be meeting with him again this week as well, and I have extended to all of our

staff -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: - the invitation to provide input to -

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

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly

please.

MS BETTNEY: - our staff and to our officials.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, under the 1997-98 infrastructure program and

municipal works program, the breakdown overall was as follows: Liberal districts

91 per cent; PC districts 8 per cent; Others 1 per cent.

The minister can rationalize this blatant partisan

distribution of funding but, how can he explain it to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the

member for his question and welcome my hon. critic back to the House and I am

glad to see him back in good form. We all missed him and welcome him back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. gentleman's

question, I think he should go back and check his figures and maybe the media

should also check their figures because, if you take into consideration that the

majority of seats that are in and around the St. John's area are Progressive

Conservative seats and an NDP seat, you will have to take into consideration

that the money that went to Mount Pearl and St. John's, your riding and all the

ridings around Conception Bay South, then work you figures, you will find out

that the percentages are much higher.

I am not going to stand in my place today and argue one way

or the other what the Liberal side got or what the Progressive Conservative side

got, they got much more but I can honestly say to the hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: I can honestly say to the hon. gentleman, if

he would just whisper to his colleague who sits to his immediate right and ask

him how much he got, it might dispel some of the fallacies that he is trying to

create as it relates to PC districts as compared to Liberal districts.

I say quite honestly that if all of the applications were

taken into consideration and all of the projects that have been approved in both

Tory and Liberal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. A. REID: - districts, you will find the percentages

to be much higher in your case than what the hon. gentleman is professing.

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

supplementary.

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

I think the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

should take a few lessons in Math from the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, the application -

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the note.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to. The application on the

Northeast Avalon arena would truly be a regional facility serving a population

of 30,000 people, more growth potential than any of the others approved

including the facility approved in your own district, one million dollars of

private money which is going to be put into this facility, no where else in the

Province, Mr. Speaker. There will be less provincial money going into this

application than had gone into one that was applied for in 1994, Mr. Speaker, a

study -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member should get to his question. You are getting

into a long

preamble now.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting to the question, Mr. Speaker.

The study of $20,000 showed that we needed it, it was

affordable. Mr. Speaker, other than the small amount of $18,000 that was

withdrawn by the Town of Pouch Cove -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is into a supplementary and I ask him to get

to his question.

MR. J. BYRNE: - had four other towns on the Northeast

Avalon supporting it, Mr. Speaker. How can the minister justify refusing this

application?

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear a word.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, can I go up in the other end of

the building and answer the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. REID: Let me say to the hon. Speaker, I really

feel sorry about taking $2.4 million for a regional civic centre for Carbonear.

I really feel sorry about that. I apologize to the House for taking that amount

of money.

MR. J. BYRNE: Answer the question, now, and give the

right answer (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: To answer your last question - that was one

of your middle questions; you asked me five - I answered the one about the

Carbonear district quite admirably, as far as I am concerned. I will answer the

last one.

Mr. Speaker, this hon. gentlemen and a certain community in

the hon. member's district asked for $3.5 for a twin-rink stadium.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Twin rinks?

MR. A. REID: Twin rinks.

I asked the communities in his district for support for the

stadium. I did not get it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wanted two.

MR. A. REID: They did not want one rink; they wanted two.

I spoke also to the City of St. John's and the Department of

Recreation, and they told me there was possibly going to be an application for a

private development which would not cost the Government of Newfoundland or

Canada one cent for a facility in the east end of St. John's.

The hon. member wasn't available at the time to discuss the

question with me. I discussed the question with the MP for St. John's East. The

MP for St. John's East had $4.2 million to put in her district. I think she did

a very good job, considering that $2.5 million had to come out for St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: If the hon. Member for St. John's East - the

federal member for St. John's East - had taken their $3.5 million and given it

to the hon. gentleman, I would have had to cancel the $4.5 million beginning of

the clean-up of the harbour of St. John's. And, Sir, I was not in a position, or

this government was not in a position, to build a stadium in that part of St.

John's East, knowing full well that there were other areas of that district that

needed the money much worse than a two-rink stadium located in Torbay, or

wherever it was he applied for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is rationalizing

his answer over there with respect to this, and with respect to Bonnie Hickey,

the federal MP, I wrote her on February 25 and did not even get a response to my

letter (inaudible) support. That is what went on here.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister deny that funding of $1

million was set for this project, that it changed at the last minute, Thursday,

for two reasons: He had visits from Liberal ministers. Funding for the Northeast

Avalon was taken away and given to Liberal districts, and the percentages prove

it - and I have that from three sources, very, very good sources who are so

close to you it is not even funny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Does he deny that the second reason it was

refused was because of pure vindictiveness on behalf of the minister, because of

the fact that the Auditor General went into Pouch Cove and you refused it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: It is passing strange -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's comments are out of order. The hon. member

cannot make statements that reflect in any way on members of the House.

I ask the hon. member to get to his question because he is

now on a supplementary. He is asking a question and giving his own answer. The

hon. the member should get to the question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Does the minister deny that the two reasons

I gave for that application being refused are the two reasons that I gave, which

were: visits from the Liberal ministers to get money that was allocated for that

arena that went to their districts; and the fact that you are still upset over

the fact that the Auditor General went into Pouch Cove when you did not want her

to go in. It is passing strange -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Answer that question.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I really don't know how to

answer the question. I figure, to be honest about it, I am really taken aback,

because I thought, to be quite honest - and I make this comment through the hon.

the Speaker to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition - I thought, and in fact,

you told me a while ago, that I was the least vindictive on this side. I am

confused.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: You must have me tangled up with John Efford

or someone like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do

not really know how the hon. gentleman thinks, but if he thinks that I am losing

sleep at home in my bed in Carbonear or losing, I suppose, my wits over the fact

that the Auditor General went in or did not go in to Pouch Cove, I think you had

better take a few more days off and consider what you are doing and what you are

saying in the House.

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

for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that question just basically

went to the pettiness of the minister, that is all, and the answer certainly

addressed that. Does the minister now deny - from my perspective, and what I am

hearing here today from you, and from what I have heard from other people who

are so close to you - that as far as I am concerned, are you now telling this

House of Assembly bold-faced lies?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark. The hon.

member cannot say that. It is totally out of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I did not make the statement,

I asked the question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - but I withdraw the question. I withdraw

the question, Mr. Speaker. Will he answer this question? Is the minister now

telling this House of Assembly - or is he deliberately misleading this House of

Assembly with the answers he gave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the hon. member is implying in his question that the

hon. member may be deliberately misleading the House. That is unacceptable.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

the remark that he made.

MR. J. BYRNE: I withdraw the question, Mr. Speaker, but

point made.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement without any

qualification, or without any modification, or anything else.

MR. J. BYRNE: I did that, but I withdraw the question,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement.

MR. J. BYRNE: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Good.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods. Would the minister inform the House as to the status of the

privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products, and would he confirm that there are

at least two serious expressions of interest? Would he also inform the House as

to who those two particular groups are?

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

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

that if he were to go back to the Throne Speech, it was stated quite clearly in

the Throne Speech that the government was going to seek to privatize

Newfoundland Farm Products. We have appointed a chairman, and a board along with

that chairman, to do that.

Let me say to him that there are various meetings ongoing,

that there are various negotiations taking place, and at this point in time, I

am not in a position to say exactly what is happening, because it would perhaps

jeopardize some of those negotiations. At the appropriate time, when we are in a

position to make a statement to the House, I say to the hon. gentleman, the

second group to know will be the Opposition. The government will be the first.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister can confirm that a deal is imminent,

and that the sale of Newfoundland Farm Products to Mr. Bill Barry of Barry

Fisheries or to the Independent Producers Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador are the two proponents who are interested in this particular facility?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the answer that I gave to the main

question applies to this one as well.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the answer must be

a positive one. Would the minister inform the House as to what government

expects from a new owner of Newfoundland Farm Products? For example, what

protection will be offered employees? What will the purchase price be? Will the

sale include and guarantee the operations at both St. John's and Corner Brook?

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

MR. TULK: Same answer applies to 1(

c) as it did to 1(

a) and 1(b).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

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

Recently, the Terra Nova assessment panel requested

information from the developer, Petro Canada, with respect to the Terra Nova

oilfield with respect to employment benefits and industrial benefits. One of the

responses Terra Nova sent back, in terms of employment benefits, is that it was

their assessment that there would be enough skilled personnel in maritime

regions around the world, in other regions in Canada and within the Province to

fulfil what they had anticipated would be the employment needs. I ask the

minister responsible for industrial training in the Province, does he accept

Petro Canada's viewpoint that there are enough skills and skilled people outside

this Province to fill jobs in this Province? If he does not accept that premise,

then what is the government doing to ensure that adequate training is being put

in place for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to ensure that the most benefits

and most employment benefits that we can get from our resource, in fact, will

take place?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think everybody understands that the objective of the

government, every time that there is any kind of a project on the horizon, and

in particular this case, since we have had notice for some period of time now,

that the government's position has always been to meet with the proponents - in

this case the developers of the Terra Nova oil field - to ascertain completely

and thoroughly what the needs might be and what the opportunities might be for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to do whatever is necessary, as the

Opposition would agree, I am sure, to make sure that we are prepared to maximize

the opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get the jobs that are

available. Those kinds of meetings have been going on with respect to the Terra

Nova Project for several years now, since there was some discussion, Mr.

Speaker, in a preliminary fashion about the prospects for this development

dating back almost a decade. While we are getting closer now and while the

details are becoming more obvious as to exactly what types of opportunities are

there, we have every confidence that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, already

trained, will have very good opportunities to be employed. If there are some

gaps where there are specific areas of need, that we have identified a shortage

of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - qualified Newfoundlanders, that they will

be given some opportunity for training to make sure they maximize their chance

of getting the jobs.

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

Kilbride.

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

The minister has just confirmed really that government has

produced nothing substantial, nothing concrete, no plan to ensure that where

there are disadvantages or where skills do not exist that a training plan will

be put in place. Petro-Canada, themselves, Mr. Speaker, have said to the Terra

Nova assessment panel - and if he would like to read it, I can send it over to

him - that they do not plan to train Newfoundlanders and Labradorians where

skills deficiencies exist.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question remains, then: What is

government doing specifically to ensure that if there are 100 or 200 skills

deficiencies, where skills do not exist in the Province to take advantage of

technical trades and technical opportunities, what is the Province doing to

ensure that that plan is put in place and that, at the end of the day,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will receive the full and fair share of benefit

from Terra Nova development?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do concur, as the hon. member pointed out, that Terra Nova

has indicated that they, themselves, do not plan to do the training because they

understand that there are trained personnel available to them from a variety of

areas, some of which is Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the government's commitment, Mr. Speaker, what we have

looked at, again, as I stated in the first answer, was the areas of need. We

have already done some things. It was only about two months ago that I was at

the Seal Cove Campus of the community college, the College of the North

Atlantic, and we actually participated with the Federal Government in unveiling

training programs with respect to drilling to make sure that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, who are made aware of the types of opportunities that are

available at Terra Nova -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Period has now elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: - to take advantage of the training that

would make them eligible for the jobs. We understand that Terra Nova, itself,

and the consortium doing the development, do not feel any obligation that they,

themselves, should particularly train Newfoundlanders. But we know what kinds of

jobs are there. We know, Mr. Speaker, that through the college system, through

the Marine Institute and the university and so on, that it has been identified,

the areas of need. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are interested know that

the programs are available and they can be trained themselves -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

MR. GRIMES: - through the system in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

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

Petitions

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

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

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

people in my district with respect to the privatization of the parks. I will

submit it and you can count them later on I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. There is enough there, there is enough.

Mr. Speaker, this petition of course concerns the

privatization of parks and the prayer is as follows: we the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador wish to petition the Provincial Government, the

Minster of Tourism and the Premier to immediately reverse the decision to

privatize the provincial parks as they are the peoples resource. We feel that

this decision was made in haste without any consultation of the people who own

the parks, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, now I have been on my feet on a number of

occasions presenting petitions in this House, as have a number of my colleagues

on this side of the House, but it does not seem to be cutting water with the

Minister of Tourism, as a matter of fact it is more like water off a ducks back,

I say to you Mr. Speaker.

Now, I heard the minister in the media recently trying to

rationalize the privatization of these parks. Trying to rationalize saying that

they have seventy-seven applications for the number of parks that are being

privatized. That is less than three applications per park, if you want to

average it out. Seventy-seven applicants are supposed to show a great amount of

interest in the privatization of the parks, but what the minister does not

consider is the number of people that have been opposed to the privatization of

these parks. She does not talk about the number of names that have been

presented in this House of Assembly. The petitions that have been signed and how

many people have signed these petitions. She does not talk about the number of

people that have attended public meetings across this Province and the people

who have attended demonstrations across this Province to try and put a halt to

the privatization of the parks.

Now, the Minster of Tourism, I believe, is being led down the

garden path by some individuals, I am not sure who they may be, but it must be a

number of her cabinet colleagues because it seems the word for the minister

these days and the members on that side of the House is privatize, privatize,

privatize. Now they are into talking about privatizing snow clearing and road

maintenance and what have you, in the White Hills area on the Avalon Peninsula

as a trial process in probably privatizing the whole Province, all road

maintenance, all snow clearing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, feed these things out, these little bits of information

out to the public and say we are in the planning process, we are in this

process, we are in that process, but they certainly would not be doing this kind

of stuff Mr. Speaker, if they were not seriously considering the privatization

of these services. The question has to come to rise how far do they go with the

privatization of different services in this Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador? The question has to be asked, what are people paying their taxes for?

How far more are they going to go with this? How much more are the people of

this Province going to have to take? How much more down loading is going to come

to the municipalities?

We have now, this trial process going on with respect to the

privatization of the roads and you can mark it down that it will not be long now

before they connect the roads between the municipalities, will be turned over to

the municipalities and it is a down loading. Now, if they down load these roads

to the municipalities and they privatize certain services, obviously there is

going to be a savings of money to the Provincial Government, but the people are

still paying the same taxes, they are increasing the taxes all the time. We have

something like every license fee permit that you want to look at over the past

five or six years, has been doubled, tripled, quadrupled and we have this

adminstration saying what a grand job they are doing for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They are doing a great job of robbing the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Putting their hands into our pockets very deep down,

because now Mr. Speaker, we need deep pockets in this Province to survive.

People in this Province are either surviving because of the tactics of this

administration and the federal administration that is in power in Ottawa, they

are surviving or they are going backwards. The amount of money that people have

to spend these days compared to the amount of money they had to spend two,

three, four, five years ago is forever becoming less and less and less.

So, the minister gets on now and talks about privatizing

these parks and what is going to happen if they privatize the parks?-- people

are going to have to dig deeper again into their pockets to utilize these parks,

and people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, by far, most of them

cannot take trips to Florida like the Minister of Health and other ministers

around here can take. Their trip to Florida, Mr. Speaker, is their trips to the

parks, is the gravel-pit camping, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is on the

attack for now. That is what is happening in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say

that the people of this Province pockets are being raped. This administration

has no more human factor in them than that desk there in front of me, Mr.

Speaker. All human factor in this Province with respect to the services for the

people of this Province have been thrown out the window, and the Administration

is handling things blindly and the dollar, the almighty dollar, has become even

more almighty in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to speak to the petition presented by my hon.

colleague from Cape St. Francis.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have presented a number of

petitions on this particular issue in the past. Now, we are up to somewhere in

excess of 15,000 names on petitions, people against the privatization of

provincial parks and that speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. The minister has

seventy-seven proposals on the twenty-one parks and seven sites and we have over

15,000 names now, people who are opposed to the privatization of provincial

parks. We have hundreds of people out to our meetings that we have hosted across

the Province. Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it, this decision, on the

part of the minister and the government was made in haste. The park employees,

were caught off guard some of them with only weeks left on their Unemployment

Insurance benefits and some of those people now are left without jobs for the

summer.

Mr. Speaker, the tourism season in this Province is going to

open in a matter of weeks and to this date we still have no idea who it is that

is taking over these camp grounds to operate them privately and that is very

scary, the fact that these camp grounds, these provincial parks are now going

into private hands and we have no idea at this point, who is going to be

operating them. The people who are going to be the potential operators to this

point, have no idea, no clear definitive idea of who is going to be operating

those parks and with the season opening up in a matter of three weeks or so, Mr.

Speaker, that is a recipe for disaster. This Province faces humility in this

tourism season especially in light of the fact that it is a Cabot 500 tourism

year and probably one of the busiest tourism season that our Province has ever

experienced.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this petition and the

people who have signed the petition because of the fact that, I truly believe

government has gone far beyond their rightful duties in privatizing these parks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition on behalf of the number of Newfoundlanders who are petitioning the

House of Assembly on the issue of School Lunch Program and who ask in the House

of Assembly to direct government to establish a universal, comprehensive School

Lunch Program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end the

child hunger and to give our children a better chance.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions are from the communities of

Bonavista, Catalina and Port Union in Newfoundland, and St. John's and

Conception South and other places in the Province, and they are interested in

asking the government to look at the issue of child poverty not only as an issue

of one which results in hungry children going to school; hungry children being

faced with that desperate prospect, Mr. Speaker, in this day and age in this

country, one of the wealthiest in the world, supposedly one of the best places

in the world to live. If that is so, how can we tolerate the fact of hungry

children in our midst?

Something has to be done to address that, and it has to be

done by government. It is not something that is so flexible and so malleable,

and so unimportant as to be relegated to the area of private charity or

volunteer effort. It is something that must be addressed by government as a

political mandate from the people of the Province for government to put in place

programs and policies that serve the people. And if governments such as this

one, which has the means through its programs, through its budgetary measures,

through its education budget, through the savings that are being contemplated

and accruing daily in the education field - reduction in the number of teachers,

closure of schools, shutting down of school bus operations in a number of areas

where they are no longer necessary, decreasing enrolments and other factors that

are reducing dramatically the cost of primary, elementary and secondary

education in the Province - there are, in fact, substantial dollars available to

the provincial purse to fund and fully support a universal, comprehensive School

Lunch Program. Why members opposite do not get onto the support of this issue, I

don't understand.

I see the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile listening intently to

my comments. He knows that within his district there are many children who go to

school hungry every day, and he knows from reading the report presented to

government by Dr. Patricia Canning last fall - as I am sure he diligently reads

his reports - he knows that children's ability to learn is affected by their

nutritional state and by their state of hunger, which they experience on a daily

basis while attending school. It affects their ability to learn. It is going to

affect their ability to make the best use of the educational resources that are

available through the public school system. It is going to affect their ability

to obtain an advanced standing in class. It is going to affect their ability to

move on from school to other educational opportunities and training

opportunities, and is thereby going to affect as well their ability to earn a

living and support their families. So it is not simply a matter of giving a

child a meal today; it is a fact of ending and alleviating some aspects of child

hunger today and also giving those children a better opportunity for tomorrow.

That is what government should be all about, spending money now, using community

and common resources now, to alleviate current problems and prevent further

problems down the road.

Anyone who knows anything about the effects of poor nutrition

and poverty on children knows that it can become a lifelong sentence for a child

to be deprived of an opportunity to properly participate in school and to

properly learn. It is something that is at the very heart of what government

should be about. I would call it a motherhood issue. It is something that is so

straightforward and simple that I am shocked and surprised that all hon. members

of this House are not on their feet on an ongoing basis speaking in support of

it, and I ask the government to take the steps necessary to establish a

universal, comprehensive School Lunch Program so that every schoolchild in

Newfoundland and Labrador has an opportunity to have a full belly and to learn

properly in the schools.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise again today to support the petition of my colleague

which advocates that we have a comprehensive School Lunch Program initiated in

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is conclusive evidence of a direct

relationship between nutrition and health, and direct and conclusive evidence of

a relationship between educational achievement and nutrition. Therefore, we

simply have to say to ourselves: What is it that we should be doing if we in

Newfoundland have a problem of poor nutrition, particularly as it relates to

young children and children who are in the school system.

Mr. Speaker, we know from the studies that have been done

that poverty with its host of attendant problems places children at risk in

school. We know that in this Province at least 25 per cent of the children are

growing up in poverty. We know that this issue of poverty is at the very heart

of special education. We know that more children who are poor go to special

education than any other socio-economic group. We know that more children from

poor families repeat grades. We know that children from poor families have the

highest drop-out rates in school. We know all of this because it has been

studied over and over again.

Some children are at risk of not completing school or not

doing it to the best of their ability from the very day they enter the school

system. Isn't it tragic that when you talk to a grade I or grade II teacher some

of these primary school teachers can identify with great accuracy those who will

be at risk of dropping out by the time they reach grade X, XI or XII.

Poverty is an educational issue, it is a human issue. It has

real children. They have real lives, they live in real families, and they have

very real problems. While we stand here day after day and present petitions, we

hope that the parents of these children are listening, and we hope as well that

the community leaders are listening, but more importantly in this forum, we hope

the government is listening, because this problem is not going to go away.

I say to the government that Newfoundland and Labrador has

the highest rate of both family poverty and adult illiteracy in all the

provinces of Canada. (Inaudible) ask the question: To what extent is adult

illiteracy a factor of the family circumstances in which these people grew up?

Research will show, if you have a disadvantaged child you are bound to have a

disadvantaged adult. It doesn't take any great deal of systematic further

research to prove that. It is there. In 1992 the poverty rate for Canadian

families was 13.3 per cent. In Newfoundland, over 18 per cent of families,

representing over 38,000 children, lived below the poverty line. The poverty

rate for children of single parents in 1992 was estimated to be 73 per cent. If

you are living in a single-parent family in Newfoundland you have 73 per cent to

75 per cent or maybe higher percentage of that to be living in poverty. Yet we

find the minister here in this government who has said to single parents: We

aren't going to give you any more help to go to school and make a better life

for your children and for yourself. So 40,000 children in Newfoundland live

below the poverty line.

We know that children are just like adults when they are

hungry. We know that children get headaches, we know that their stomachs roll,

we know that they become lethargic, we know they can't concentrate, so we have

to say to ourselves: What is it that we can do to give these children -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - a fighting chance? We say to members on

all sides of the House, let's do something about child poverty and do it now,

because the consequences of not doing it are long term and they are humanly

detrimental to all involved. Thank you very much.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in my

commitment to continue to present petitions on behalf of my district on the road

conditions in the area. Today, I have a petition from the community of Shoe

Cove, some 250 names, to the hon. House of Assembly. I will read the prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of Shoe Cove, are disgusted and

upset with the road conditions in our community. We demand pavement or upgrading

- for example, top quality crushed stone - as soon as possible. We do not intend

to settle for anything less, and will not stop before our demands are met.

Mr. Speaker, you notice even in the prayer of the petition -

and I mentioned this in the last petition I presented from the Middle Arm -

Burlington area - that these people are not looking for major highways. As a

matter of fact, in this particular case they would even settle for not having

pavement this year, just an upgrade.

Even as we speak today, the protests continue in my district

in these communities. This is another community that has to travel over - and I

will tell the minister this - just some two-and-a-half kilometres of road. It is

not a lot. As a matter of fact, it is one of the examples I have used over the

years with the previous minister, Mr. Efford, when we talked about how, for just

two-and-a-half kilometres of pavement, this community could be taken care of. As

a matter of fact, right across the Baie Verte highway, or the La Scie highway,

in two more communities, Brent's Cove and Harbour Round, I have told the

minister that with just five kilometres of pavement, he could satisfy three

communities. All those communities range from some 250 in Shoe Cove to 300 - 450

in Harbour Round and Brent's Cove, quite a number of people living in a small

area, three communities that are only within five kilometres of each other. And

with a small amount of pavement, they would not have to, day after day, put

their children through the hardship of travelling back and forth on the buses.

As a matter of fact, to make note of it, in this particular

petition there is a note at the end that says that high school bus students have

also signed this petition because they understand. I will go beyond that and say

that they more than understand; they live it every single day when they have to

get out of bed early enough to get a bus and go to another community. They have

accepted that. They have accepted also that their hospitals and so on have been

downgraded. They have accepted downloading in a lot of things, I say to the

minister, so what they are asking for now is just a little bit in comparison to

all of those things.

What they are saying is, for the decency of the people still

living in those communities, that they at least have something decent to ride

over and, like they have mentioned here, not even pavement at this point but at

least upgrading so that every time I have to call a grader to go down there

again because the bus will not travel over the road, at least they will have

something to grade; because right now it is down to bald rock and there is

nothing even left to grade. So let us forget the pavement for a second and just

think about at least a decent road to go over; but, I would say to the minister,

this road should be considered for paving in her long-term commitment that she

is about to make in the next couple of weeks or so.

Mr. Speaker, the point I would like to make to the minister

today is that this is another community that is tired of putting their children

on buses to be beat around until they get into school. It is hard enough for

those parents to convince their children to go to school sometimes these days

because they have to travel, but when you add the insult to injury, I guess you

could say, of having to travel over a road that is in this condition, you cannot

blame parents for thinking that.

I repeat again a statement that a parent made to me the last

time I was at one of these protests in another community: they were not sending

their children to school to go through this situation day in, day out. We are

not talking about just one day. These roads have deteriorated so much now that

unless there is something done soon they are going to become impassable.

I commend these people in Shoe Cove, and the students, for

taking the time to give me this petition. I present it today in the House while

the minister is present, to make sure their concerns also for that community are

raised in this House of Assembly, and that they be given every consideration for

upgrading and paving in that community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 great

Member for the District of Baie Verte.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some attention to what the

member has been saying. The petition is particularly on behalf of the residents

of Shoe Cove, but when I listened more attentively and after just having a brief

conversation with him, he tells me that in his district, out of a total of

thirty-three communities, in nineteen of those communities people must drive

over dirt roads. That has to be, I suppose, a blight upon the people of that

particular part of the Province.

MR. G. REID: Why (inaudible) pave it when they were here

for seventeen years?

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. House, in

spite of the rhetoric being thrown across the House by the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo - I just say to the hon. member, the truth is that $300,000

was what was allocated in this member's district. It has been shown conclusively

that this district, when it comes to community infrastructure, is among the

districts in the Province with the greatest needs. Therefore, the great needs of

this district were ignored when the infrastructure program was being considered.

This member has put forward the plea and the petitions on

behalf of his constituents. Mr. Speaker, we are going to say to people in this

gallery here today - we had the entrepreneurs here from Italy; we are going to

say to them: We want you to go out to this district and we want you to invest in

rural Newfoundland. Then we would say to them: This is what we are going to

offer you by way of a quality of life. We are going to say to these people: This

is where we want you to bring in your team and set up, in this part of the

Province. Yet, in this part of the Province we still have nineteen communities

that are only accessible over dirt roads!

We have to put some common sense to the approach here. We

cannot say to entrepreneurs: We want you to invest in rural Newfoundland, and

then not bring services up. That is why doctors will not go to rural

Newfoundland. That is why you have difficulty getting any professional people to

move to rural Newfoundland. It is because we, as a Province, will not recognize

that people have to have a certain standard of living before they are willing to

move into those places and have their children raised in some of those smaller

communities. We have to put money into rural Newfoundland if we are going to be

able to attract the entrepreneurs that we had here in the House today.

I say to the hon. member, keep fighting, keep working at it.

Three hundred thousand dollars is not enough money for his district. It is an

insult to the good people of that district. It really is a significant insult to

those rural Newfoundlanders who have worked so long and so hard to keep their

communities together. I say to this hon. House, let us reconsider on the basis

of everything that we think is fair, that is on a balance - and the former

Premier always talked about fairness and balance. Try to tell me where fairness

and balance is today, when you have nineteen communities that can be only

accessed over dirt roads, and in 1997 we are going to say to them: We are going

to give you $300,000 in total for all infrastructure. Yet, at the same time,

because of the efforts of this member - this member is the primary person who

brought this great group of Italian entrepreneurs to this Province. This member

deserves a great deal of the credit, and he is a fantastic member, works hard -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. H. HODDER: - to bring in the jobs, and then we say:

For that, Mr. Speaker, we are going to give you a measly $300,000 so we can keep

your people in your district perpetually with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - bad roads and poor infrastructure.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1, the Budget Speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1, the Budget Debate.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of items that I would like to talk about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifteen minutes each.

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, fifteen minutes each. First of all, the

out-migration, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) parks.

MR. OSBORNE: I am going to get to parks. Parks is on the

list. I am hoping the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will make her

way back so I can talk about the parks.

Mr. Speaker, out-migration: Our Province has suffered

probably the heaviest out-migration, over the last couple of years, ever in

history. With the percentage of people moving out of our Province, Mr. Speaker,

that is a big problem. With the percentage of people moving out of our Province

you cannot expect our economy to grow and strengthen and prosper. Our government

has to create jobs and create a strong economy here in order to keep people in

our Province. We have seen evidence of that. We have probably the most

resource-rich Province in Canada. We have seen evidence in Ireland where they

have very little natural resources and they have probably the most prosperous

region now in Europe. So the out-migration is a big problem in Newfoundland and

Labrador today that must be addressed.

The reduction in municipal grants: we are told that there are

no new tax increases in the last budget, this year. Last year, we were told very

much the same thing but yet there are tremendous cuts in municipal grants, Mr.

Speaker, and through the process of reducing municipal grants, the

municipalities are passing those reductions through tax increases on to the

people in the municipalities. So there are tax increases in both budgets, last

year and this year, that are being passed on as a hidden tax through municipal

grant decreases.

There have been several cuts through Social Services. The

increase that has been passed on by the Federal Government is being clawed back

by social services this year. You saw last year the $61 cut in emergency funding

through Social Services. The people who can least afford the cuts in our

Province are the people who are taking the biggest hit and unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, the people who are moving out of our Province, through out-migration,

are the educated people. So what you are finding is through Social Services they

are getting less and less money as the cost of living continuously increases,

and this is what we are depending on as the backbone of our economy. That is

saddening, because our educated people are moving out of our Province and

looking for brighter prospects elsewhere. So when you carefully study what is

happening, the majority of the people living in our Province today are either on

TAGS - which is coming to an end - on social assistance or on UI. Without job

creation and without reductions in the number of people being laid off in the

civil service, Mr. Speaker, our economy is going to crumble.

The HST has brought further hardships upon the people who can

least afford to pay it, through increased cost in electricity bills, increased

cost in oil and increased cost in gas and children's clothing. Again, Mr.

Speaker, the people who can least afford to pay it are the people who are being

hardest hit and that segment of our population are not the people moving away

through the out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, our health care is suffering. People needing

heart surgery, cardiac care, have waiting lists. Mr. Speaker, the health care

system is in turmoil here in the Province.

MR. EFFORD: He should be (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say something

but I could not dignify a louse.

Mr. Speaker, the sanitary conditions in our hospitals are

deplorable. I have had relatives in hospital over the last couple of months and

there is dust underneath the beds in these hospitals. My colleague, the health

critic, has told me of an instance where somebody was admitted and put into a

bed where the sheets were not even changed. Mr. Speaker, our health care system

here is in crisis. There are long, long waiting lists now for people to get into

hospital and many of these people, unfortunately, are dying of heart disease and

heart troubles before they ever make it into the hospital.

I was speaking to a gentleman, Mr. Speaker, a war veteran,

who has been on a waiting list now for five years. He had a stroke fifteen

months ago, and with the stroke, he is paralysed on one side, and still has not

been able to get into the hospital. It is not important enough, his case is not

severe enough to allow him access to the hospital. That is frightening, Mr.

Speaker, because, either one of us in this House, our family members, our

children, relatives can fall into the same circumstances where they have a heart

attack or stroke and are unable to gain access to proper health care. It is

frightening.

On to park privatization, Mr. Speaker. We have twenty-one

parks now that are being put into private hands - twenty-one parks. Two years

ago, we had twenty-eight parks put into private hands or put up for

privatization. Of those, there were fifteen parks that had serious enquiries,

twelve parks that were taken over by private individuals and only ten of those

are operating today. Now, we are told that we have seventy-seven proposals on

the twenty-one parks and seven sites that are up for privatization, Mr. Speaker,

seventy-seven proposals on those twenty-one parks, and we are hearing rumours

through park employees that those tenders that have gone in on the parks, range

anywhere from $9,000 up to about $20,000.

Mr. Speaker, I would venture to guess that any one of those

parks would have far more money spent on them than even the $20,000- tender that

has been put in. The investment into these parks by the people of our Province,

I would say, has been tremendously higher than that $20,000, and the cost of

$1.8 million a year to our Budget, while I understand that we have to be

fiscally responsible and that our government is scurrying to find ways of

cutting back on expenditures, $1.8 million - when tourism is going to be, is

supposed to be, one of the brighter outlooks as an enterprise, an industry in

our Province, $1.8 million is a small investment by this Province, when you

consider we are getting $150 million a year in nature and eco-tourism generated

through outside tourists. Over and above $300 million, Mr. Speaker, has been

generated through resident tourists.

So we have a $450 million-tourism industry right now in

Newfoundland and Labrador and that has the potential to grow significantly. When

you look at areas like Prince Edward Island or even areas like the Yukon, that

have healthy tourism industries, areas like Alaska, we have the potential here

with what we have to offer to have a very strong and vibrant tourism industry

and yet, we are not prepared to invest $1.8 million a year into an

infrastructure that is already in place, that already employs people and can be

improved upon. And the employees, themselves, Mr. Speaker, have said that they

can find ways of reducing that $1.8 million significantly. They can find ways of

reducing that $1.8-million expenditure on the parks so that it is not as heavy a

burden, probably almost even eliminate that $1.8 million through

revenue-generating processes such as minor amenities, small amenities in these

parks or even in some of the parks, a small number of the parks, putting major

amenities, is what will be there through the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, the people of our Province do not want major

amenities in all of these twenty-one parks. We already have enough private parks

with major amenities, but some of those parks no doubt could take major

amenities and all of them could take minor amenities without seriously affecting

the nature and eco-tourism experience that is experienced right now through

those parks. Those parks with lower visitorship could increase the visitorship.

If what we were told in 1995 - through the $1 million a year over the next five

years to go into improving the washroom and shower facilities through the parks

that are there now, we could increase the visitorship to those parks to the

point that a major portion of that $1.8 million cost could be reduced. Because

in this day and age, while people want a true nature and eco-tourism experience

through the provincial parks, they still want washroom facilities. I think we

have gone beyond the day when people accept the regular outhouse as something

that they want to experience in a provincial park.

Mr. Speaker, through the privatization of provincial parks

there are ninety-two employees being displaced. Of those we are told that

roughly forty-five of them will be hired back on through the existing remaining

provincial parks. Yet, we are not told the full story of this Mr. Speaker. Many

of those employees will get ten or twelve weeks a year. They will be kept on all

right, forty-five employees will be keep on, but many of those employees will be

given ten or twelve weeks a year, as compared to what they are getting now

through the full tourism season and many of those employees will probably within

the next year or two move on. Move out of the Province or find different

employment elsewhere because they will not be satisfied with just ten or twelve

weeks a year. In some cases depending on where they live ten or twelve weeks

will not even be enough to allow then to qualify for EI benefits.

Talking on EI Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is a federal

issue, EI and TAGS, but the changes to the EI program were changes that were

drawn up and proposed while our Premier sat as the Newfoundland representative

around the caucus table in Ottawa and he agreed to many of these changes.

Devastating changes to a Province where a very large percentage of the workers

are seasonal and many of these workers now that are seasonal will find it harder

to qualify for EI benefits and when they do qualify it will be for a shorter

period of time and with a smaller EI benefit every two weeks. That in itself

will be devastating to our economy Mr. Speaker, as well as having our health and

social transfer payments reduced to the point that it is a burden on our

economy. When you look at the fact that TAGS is going to be cut out within the

next year and EI benefits to our Province are cut significantly, that means less

dollars in our Province no matter what way you look at it, no matter what way it

is sliced, that is less money in our Province and it means more people on social

services.

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this budget debate is the

fact that this budget is bad for our Province in many ways and part of the

reason this budget is bad for our Province is the fact that there is less money

coming from Ottawa, there is less monies going to the municipalities, there are

more people on social services, the educated people in our Province are leaving

our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the last seven years or eight years, this

Province has been devastated and there is one word that can explain the reason

why it is has been devastated, it is a contrast really, it is ironic, but there

is one word to explain why our economy has been devastated over the last seven

or eight years and that word is Liberal and that is very ironic when you look at

the meaning of Liberal, it should not mean devastation. It should not mean

devastation, people moving out of our Province. It should not mean more people

on social assistance, less people working. It should not mean that not only

while the Premier was sitting in Ottawa at the caucus table, the Newfoundland

representative in Ottawa, that he negotiated a poor deal as far as Newfoundland

is concerned for EI benefits, but now he is sitting in the Premiers seat here

and he is not fighting against it and I can guarantee you Mr. Speaker, if there

were anybody other than he sitting in that Premier's chair, especially if there

were a Conservative government in power here in Newfoundland today, we would

fight that EI change to Newfoundland and Labrador, because that spells nothing

but hardship to the people of our Province.

We would fight the early discontinuation of TAGS benefits to

our fisherpeople. We would fight the cuts in health and social transfers to our

Province but none of that is being done. This Province is at the beck and call

of the Liberal government; we are at the mercy of the Liberal government who are

so eager to agree with the Liberal government in Ottawa that it does not matter

what devastation it brings to our Province. They are so eager to go along with

what the government in Ottawa is saying that it has absolutely no meaning at

all. It is just to agree with whatever they send down here.

Mr. Speaker, we have seven Liberal members federally and a

majority of Liberal members here in the Provincial House of Assembly, and the

seven Liberal members federally, have done absolutely nothing for our Province.

They have agreed with every cut coming our way and unfortunately, the provincial

government you would think would stand up and fight for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians because they are the ones who have to answer for the cuts at the

end of the day, and they have not fought.

There are ways that we can maximize our benefits from our

resources and dig ourselves out of this devastating hole that the Liberal

government has put the Province in, Mr. Speaker. We have the largest nickel,

copper and cobalt find probably in the whole world and this government has not

put in place yet a royalty regime on that resource. When we heard rumours that

this was going to be the largest nickel find in the world and we had plenty of

time to change the Mineral Tax Act, the government did not do it; and while I

agree that the members on this side of the House, during that time, I was not

here at that time, but the members on this side of the House voted in favour of

the Mineral Tax Act, that was before anybody realized that Voisey's Bay was

there, before it was discovered.

I mean, that Mineral Tax Act was designed to bring small

mining companies in and set up in our Province and create employment and create

some royalty revenues, spin-off revenues through the smaller mining companies,

but when we heard rumours that Voisey's Bay was going to be the largest nickel

find in the world, the government sat back and did nothing. Even though we on

this side of the House stood up and said we have to act fast, we have to put in

place a royalty regime on Voisey's Bay, even last February when I was first

elected, I remember we stood in our places here and said we have to act fast

before Falconbridge sells Voisey's Bay to somebody else, we have to act fast. We

have to put in place a Mineral Tax Act that will allow us a royalty regime on

Voisey's Bay, the largest nickel find in the world and the government sat back

and did nothing and now, we are caught in a position where the people of our

Province have to trust that Inco is going to give us a satisfactory deal, a

satisfactory royalty payment on what is our resource.

Mr. Speaker, we have to start looking the way that the

Alberta government does. It is our resource, we have it, you want it, now you

play the game by our rules. We have been so eager in this Province to sit back

and let the large corporations that are taking our resources call the shots and

set the rules but we have to stand up and put in place the rules. We have to put

in place the rules on our resources; that is what Alberta has done and Alberta

is probably the wealthiest Province in Canada. They control their resources. If

you are an oil company and you want to drill in Alberta, you play by their rules

and if you do not want to play by their rules, there is another oil company that

will, and we have to realize that we have the same leverage here, with the

largest nickel find in the world we should have the same leverage but we let

that opportunity slip.

Right now we are at the mercy of Inco to give us a good

royalty deal on our resource because we failed to put in place a royalty regime

when we had the chance.

You look as Gisborne Lake, something else that I have spoken

on many times in the House, many times publicly through the media and so on. We

have, in our Province, many, many, many lakes with pristine, pure, fresh water

that is of the quality that we can bottle it and label it with very, very little

processing involved. We can bottle it and label it and retail package it so that

it is ready for the retail market. Yet, when our government was presented with

two proposals to allow 13.5 billion litres of water a year to be drained out of

Gisborne Lake and pumped into a tanker and shipped off somewhere else so that

they can bottle it and label it and package it, and create the employment on it,

and created the extra royalties on it through the sale of a retail-ready

product, we did not say: No we will not accept those proposals unless you are

prepared to make that product retail-ready here.

Sure, 13.5 billion litres of water out of one lake is a lot.

We have several lakes that can do the same thing - several lakes that are

capable of doing the same thing - and if we set a precedent now where we will

let a company from Quebec come in and ship out 13.5 billion litres of water a

year, then that is going to be hard to break; and we shouldn't even consider one

company, not even one project, where the water is shipped out as a raw resource.

We have to retail-ready that product right here in our Province.

Thirteen-and-a-half billion litres of water a year is the same as 27 billion

bottles of water similar to the Evian or Perrier bottles that are being sold

throughout the Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this is unhealthy. Can you call

order here? This is unhealthy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, 13.5 billion litres of water a year out of

Gisborne Lake is the same as 27 billion bottles. That is a billion dollar

industry in our Province to create billions of dollars in royalties.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the name of that lake

(inaudible)?

MR. OSBORNE: Gisborne Lake - billions of dollars in

royalties from Gisborne Lake alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tom, where is it?

MR. OSBORNE: Billions of dollars a year in royalties from

Gisborne Lake over and above the jobs that are created through the packing and

bottling, over and above the jobs that are created through the manufacturing of

the packaging, over and above the jobs that are created in the shipment of this

product, we have a billion dollar industry here and we are willing to send it

off in a tanker as a raw resource so that somebody else can make the mass

profits, so that somebody else can create the employment on packaging and

labelling, and the shipment then of the finished product.

We are looking at, in Gisborne Lake, if the government

accepts either of these proposals, maybe three or four jobs. There could be

dozens of jobs if we were to retail-ready that product right here in our

Province, as well as the extra royalties that we would receive by bottling that

product right here in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of resources such as -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South has asked for the

right to engage in the debate without interruption.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will ignore

the rude remarks from some of the rude people on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, we fail to charge stumping fees to the companies

that are taking our forest resources.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: You are absolutely right, I am used to you

and that can't be normal and I am used to him and that's not normal. I am not

used to normal processes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if we were to maximize our

benefits from our resources - and I realize that parties of both colours have

made mistakes in the past but we are now in a situation in this Province that

our economy is in turmoil. There is very little to offer in the way of extra

employment. There are people moving out, too many people on social assistance,

TAGS is running out and the changes to the EI benefits are devastating. Mr.

Speaker, what this amounts to is the fact that we have to start thinking better

here. We have to start planning and utilizing and maximizing the benefits from

our own resources and that should be very clear to the people of our Province.

That should be very clear to this government. Over the last year or so, Mr.

Speaker, I have not seen any of that in this Legislature by the government. We

have not maximized our benefits from Inco. If we continue to consider these

proposals on Gisborne Lake we have not maximized our benefits from Gisborne

Lake. We have yet to implement proper stumping fees on our forestry resources.

We have to stop sending raw resources out of this Province. We have to start

manufacturing our resources and making them retail ready and maximizing our

benefits right here.

We are talking about getting less royalties from Voisey's Bay

because there are going to be more people employed. We have to look at taking

royalties on the mineral as opposed to the profits on Voisey's Bay. It is our

resource. We have to take royalties from our minerals not what Inco are going to

show us as a bottom line, not what Inco are going to say: this is what we have

made as a profit, now take your royalties out of that. I will tell you, Mr.

Speaker, we have to maximize the benefits on our resources. This has been the

crux of my debate here this afternoon, the fact that we have not yet started

maximizing the benefits on our resources. We have let our economy go to the

point that even the poorest people in the Province are being devastated and the

educated people are moving away. We are allowing Ottawa to implement devastating

cuts through all angles to the Province, which the Province cannot afford to

take and there has been absolutely no argument through the government on this at

all.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let one of my

hon. colleagues -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I have one minute yet, Mr. Speaker, and I

thought I timed myself fairly well but I am being told to stand up for another

minute and finish up debate and enlighten the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Now the hon. member's time is up.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to say a few words on

the non-confidence motion put forward by the Opposition with respect to the

Budget. Mr. Speaker, I noticed that there are not too many members on the other

side of the House getting up to speak. From what I can gather, last week there

were not too many members who spoke on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, what we seen today - we talk about the state

that this Province is in today, Mr. Speaker, and the hardship that the people

are feeling in this Province today, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Did the hon. gentleman say that this is the

best written resolution that ever came into this Legislature, non-confidence

resolution?

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, foolishness as usual from the

Government House Leader. Foolishness as usual -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is the ruling of the Chair that there is no point of

order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. OSBORNE: Jack, again it is another example of one of

the hon. members on this side dealing with the abnormal.

MR. J. BYRNE: Abnormal, yes. The ultra-abnormal I would

say, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is the usual point of

order from the Government House Leader. He usually stands in his place and makes

a point of order, and nine times out of ten the Speaker and the Chair will rule

it out of order, that there was no point of order. You would think that the

Government House Leader would learn after nine times out of ten, that he would

learn not to stand in his place and make a fool of himself. That is what he

should do.

In the meantime, I was beginning to say that the state of

this Province - no wonder we are in the state that we are in today, with the

partisan politics that is going on in this Province today. We have stepped back

thirty years since February of last year. It took one year to go back thirty

years. With what came down in this Province on Friday, it is nothing other than

disgraceful. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Premier of

this Province should be ashamed of themselves, in the fact that the Premier

would allow to happen what happened last week in this House of Assembly, and the

statements that were put forward with respect to the infrastructure program in

this Province.

We saw that the minister put out in this Province last week

91 per cent, or $58 million, went to the Liberal districts in this Province.

When I was asking him questions today he got up and made a statement that the

federal Member for St. John's East, Bonnie Hickey, had $4.5 million to spend in

her district, and he thought she did a wonderful job. But there are seven

federal districts in this Province, and if you take $58 million - that is

somewhere over $8 million that the federal member should have had to spend if it

was being distributed evenly.

When you look at what was done in this Province last week

with 91 per cent of the money that was allocated going to Liberal districts and

8 per cent going to PC districts. Need was not considered last week when these

decisions were made. Let me tell you another factor, that decisions were made up

to the last minute. I know that the PC districts should have got at least 19 per

cent but they only got 8 per cent overall in those districts. The reason for

that, I do believe, I think that there was probably allocated along more even

lines with respect to the percentage breakdown across the Province, with the PC

districts and the Liberal districts and the NDP. But at the last minute there

were changes made.

I brought that up today in the House of Assembly and I asked

the minister questions. He tried to be smart and get around the answers of

course, and he didn't do a very good job. Because I know that last Thursday he

had meetings - maybe I should have directed my questions, instead of to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. That is who maybe I should have directed my questions

to. Because I know last Thursday she had a meeting with the minister, and after

that meeting there were some changes made, from what I can gather, in what was

to be allocated.

I know from very good sources that the arena on the northeast

Avalon, there was $1 million allocated for that facility. I'm going to have to

give a bit of history on this to show what the minister said to be inaccurate

and that he was just trying to play with figures and try to skate around the

issue. Okay? I know from sources so close to him, three individuals, that would

make the hair on his head stand on edge.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't have that worry.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is a good point, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I don't have to worry about hair standing

on my head, and I have no problems with that. Do you have a problem with it, I

say to the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not much!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not much, good. But the history of this,

Mr. Speaker, the northeast Avalon arena, this all started ten years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, there are a few ministers on the other

side trying to lead me astray with respect to the point I'm going to make, but I

will always get back to what I want to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say it would take ten ministers on

that side of the House to make one good one, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact,

when I'm talking about ministers on that side of the House, I've been let down

by a number of them, let me tell you.

I thought some of those ministers had a bit of integrity, but

obviously I had to put that in question today in this House of Assembly, let me

tell you that. Because I had discussions with at least five ministers on that

side of the House on this issue. I won't name them. I know that the member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island supported the arena on the North East Avalon.

He fully supported it, he supported it from day one. I had him in meetings in

Portugal Cove - St. Phillips and he supported it. As a matter of fact, he

thought this was a go this time, he really did. How many arenas, Mr. Speaker,

how many facilities in this Province had $1 million of private money going into

it? The whole intent of the infrastructure program is to create jobs, not only

to create jobs with government money, but to create jobs with private money, and

that was the only project in this Province that I am aware of that had $1

million of private dollars going into it. But, no, it was refused, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago, almost ten years ago in 1988, we started to

try to get this facility and we were not successful. I was the mayor of the

small town of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove at the time, and I approached

all the towns in the region to support this regional facility - a true regional

facility, by the way. And the towns would not come onside, being a bit fearful

because of all the horrific stories about arenas losing money. And they did not

come onside. When I became MHA in 1993, I approached the towns again, knowing

that there would be a Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program coming. I

talked to the towns. They saw that it would make sense to support such a

facility and they came onside. In 1994, we made application for a $2 million

project, $2 million, Mr. Speaker, and it was a very good proposal. Everyone who

looked at it in Municipal Affairs, Tourism and Culture, and what have you,

thought it was such a good plan also, but no, it did not go at that point in

time because of politics Mr. Speaker, partisan politics.

In 1997, we made another application, and in the two years

prior to this, I spoke to a number of private developers from St. John's to

B.C., and they all said that a twin arena would be more viable on Torbay Road.

We sat down and did the number crunching and the number that wanted to use it,

the different leagues, the North East Avalon Minor League, the Avalon East

Senior League, leagues in St. John's, figure skating clubs, we could not fit

them in to the time schedules. We did not have enough time to allot, so we

looked at two and it was more viable.

Now, a single arena was viable, there was no doubt about

that, make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker, with the five towns, and the five

towns did not have to put in very much money - they only had to put in $100,000

between them, $100,000 total. A one-shot deal and we had the facility there.

Now, when we applied for this one, it was a $3.6 million project, but we had $1

million of private money going into it. The Province would have to put in less

money this time than they put in the last time. Now, in the meantime, one of the

towns wrote a letter to the minister withdrawing their support. Now, out of five

towns, we have one town withdrawing their support. We still have a regional

facility with four towns and the people in the town of Pouch Cove would

definitely support the arena, Mr. Speaker, but the minister, looking for an out,

looking for a way to say no to it, tried to infer in this House today that there

was a number of towns opposed to it, which is completely inaccurate. He tried to

lead the people in this House of Assembly to believe that the towns did not

support it. I know the Town of Torbay supported it, I know the Town of Logy Bay

-Middle Cove - Outer Cove supported, I know the Town of Bauline supports it and

the Town of Flatrock, I believe, had a question they wanted to ask me, a

question. So, that is what he was trying to get around today. So, we had all the

towns supporting it and we have the minister saying no to it. Now, I know this

was included, the money, the funding was allocated for this arena and it was

changed last Thursday, and the minister can say what he wants. It is absolutely

disgusting.

This facility would service 30,000 people on the North East

Avalon, a true regional facility. It had more growth potential over the

population of that area than any other area in the Province, and it has been

proven. Torbay is growing, Logy Bay - Middle Cove -Outer Cove is growing. The

whole North East St. John's is growing, more probably than any other area in the

Province, and yet, there are other areas in the Province that got funding, that

do not have near the potential for population growth as this area does. As a

matter of fact, some of the areas are probably declining in population, and that

is a major factor, Mr. Speaker.

Now, as I said earlier, we had $1 million approved, private

money going into it. Can anybody tell me anywhere else in this Province where

there is an allocation of one million dollars of private money? Not likely, Mr.

Speaker.

Also, this application -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There are people who will be listening and

there are people who will be reading, that is the point to this, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. People can read.

Mr. Speaker, there was less money from the Province in this

application back in 1994. A study we had done in 1988 said - and that is back

ten years ago and the population was starting to go (inaudible) we wanted it,

Mr. Speaker, we needed it and we could afford it, and the five towns could

easily afford it. As I said, we had one town, the Town of Pouch Cove - the Mayor

of Pouch Cove, speaking with the minister, I would imagine, wrote a letter

saying that - as a matter of fact, I have a copy of the letter here, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it out, `Jack'.

MR. J. BYRNE: This is what he said - and I discussed this

letter with the minister, by the way, Mr. Speaker, before the House closed in

the last sitting.

I discussed this with the minister, and he knows the

difference, but he was trying to use it to say `no' so he could give more money

to a Liberal district. That is what he did, Mr. Speaker. But the letter that the

mayor wrote said that the initial proposals were for an arena similar to the

arena being built in the Goulds, which is absolutely false. It is not correct at

all, because the facility we were looking for was to house at least 1,400 fans,

so we could play for the Herder in this arena. That was one point. The other

point was, the total cost of the structure was to be approximately $1 million;

the mayor says that the arena they applied for in 1994 was $1 million. In actual

fact, it was $2 million, Mr. Speaker. The other point, he said: and we were not

notified of the change nor given the chance to consider this new proposal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, last Fall, in the Town of Torbay, in the

Council Chambers in Torbay, we had a meeting of all the towns in the area. All

the mayors and/or councils were invited to attend. All the mayors attended

except the Mayor of Pouch Cove, but he sent his deputy mayor and a councillor,

and this was discussed. As a matter of fact, it was clearly pointed out that

there was the same amount of money from the town, that is all we were asking

for, $18,000, the same allocation of funds that was submitted and asked for back

in 1994. And I said: If you have any problems, please get back to me, but nobody

got back to me. And the minister was aware of that, I discussed that with him,

but he is trying to use this letter to say that we never had the support, which

is absolutely incorrect, inaccurate and false, Mr. Speaker.

So, obviously, if he is going to use this letter to say `no'

to it, he wanted to give the money elsewhere. I made a statement in the House

today and I stand by it, Mr. Speaker, that, that is vindictiveness on the part

of the minister that this money was not allocated and was withdrawn. I was told

by people so close to him that the reason why I did not get the funding was

because it was politics and last-minute changes, Mr. Speaker, and that is

absolutely disgusting. The need was not considered by any stretch of the

imagination.

MR. EFFORD: I know what that (inaudible) from 1985 to

MR. J. BYRNE: And you will know again, maybe in 1999, I

would say. Maybe in 1999, you will know again, I say to the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture that you will sitting on this side of the House.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now the Government House Leader and

Minister of Forestry Resources and Agrifoods says that there would be neither

bit of water and sewer required in Bonavista. Is that what you said, Bonavista

North? That is why he made the statement, because he could take care of it

before the next election, and that is again, only confirming, Mr. Speaker, the

statements and the questions I had in the House today with respect to partisan

politics going on in this Province today.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman does not

mean to misquote me. What I did say was that there would be neither bit of water

and sewer, I do not believe, left in any of the major municipalities in

Bonavista North, or I hope there will not by next year. What I did not say is

that it had to take care of me for the next election. I won election after

election from the Tories from 1979 to 1989 when Brian Peckford and his cohorts

tried to starve everybody to death.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. Hon. members were taking

advantage of the opportunity for further clarification.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, now that goes right back to

what I was saying earlier about the Government House Leader. He was up twice

today on two points of order and again, no point of order, ruled by the Speaker

of the House. Nine out of ten points of order. You should know better, I say to

the Government House Leader. You're the Government House Leader. Have a bit of

respect for the position that you hold. Don't you know the rules and regulations

yet? You are here, what, forty years now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Right? So you should know them by now,

unless you are a pretty slow learner.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am, boy.

MR. J. BYRNE: A slow learner?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), like you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to the arena. As

I was saying, the letter that came from the Mayor of Pouch Cove - and I actually

have to question this letter. Because I find it more than passing strange that

the town of Pouch Cove would be the one town that would withdraw its support.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the question I asked, why? I have

an idea. I can only assume, but I'm pretty -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you find it passing strange?

MR. J. BYRNE: I find it passing strange. Because I think

that the Mayor of Pouch Cove is quite upset with Mr. Byrne for asking the Public

Accounts Committee to go in and do an investigation by the Auditor General. He

is quite upset with that. I know the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs has always been quite upset over it, and he was adamant that she wasn't

going in there. So maybe - was the letter requested? I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, you know something? You're dreaming

in technicolor.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I would say to the minister, dreaming

in technicolor. I can't dream as good as you guys can dream, I would say.

Mr. Speaker, the arena on the northeast Avalon - and I'm not

giving up on this yet, I can guarantee you that. This has been a project of mine

for ten years. I see the need of it. I saw it back ten years ago. I know that

most anybody who looks at that application proposal supports it and knows it is

a good proposal. They know that it is an area that is growing in population.

They know that it is probably the only facility, the only arena in this

Province, that - it is in a good location, it will be for young people who are

growing up. There are young families moving in there all the time, so the life

potential is great.

As a matter of fact, I have the people who are supposed to be

the competition for this facility coming to me and telling me it is a good idea

to put it there. That the demand for ice time in the St. John's region is

unreal, that it cannot be met, and that the facility would be a boost to the

area and to the people of the District of Cape St. Francis, and the whole

northeast Avalon. Not only that district but St. John's East, St. John's North,

Virginia Waters, Conception Bay East & Bell Island, all these areas. All the

people want this facility and they support it. Not everybody in the districts,

because a lot of people have different concerns, but anybody who is involved

with sports in that area definitely supports that facility. I've had people

coming to me wanting to book ice time at the facility now, and it isn't even

started, and it is being talked