Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 13 March 1997 (43rd General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLIII No. 2)
1997-03-13
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 13,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIII No. 2
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's
gallery, a distinguished Irish writer, Mr. Colin Tobin. I understand that he is
accompanied by Mr. Thomas Burke, Past President of The Irish Newfoundland
Association.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the gallery today,
fifty-four Grade VII students from the St, Pius Tenth Junior High in the
District of St. John's East and they are accompanied by teachers: Mona Morrow,
Pauline Albert and teachers' aid Gail McGettigan.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the
House today of the formation of a New Premier's Advisory Council on Economy and
Technology for Newfoundland and Labrador. The Council will provide advice to
Cabinet in several different areas - advice on economic policy, business
development, competitiveness, science and technology, sustainable development
and advice on how to integrate the environment, Mr. Speaker, and the economy.
It is important for government to keep on top of economic
issues as they arise. The members of this Premier's Advisory Council being named
today, I think will be clearly demonstrated, have their fingers very much on the
pulse of business and industry in this Province and this of course, is a very
valuable information tool that we as members of government need to draw upon.
Their hands-on experience makes them an invaluable resource.
The Advisory Council on the Economy and Technology will be
made up of key business leaders who have the knowledge and expertise to respond
to requests for advice and to make recommendations on questions that I, as
Premier and members of the Cabinet, refer to them.
I am pleased to have a panel of expert advisors who deal with
important business issues every day and economic development issues every day.
After all, Mr. Speaker, who better to assist us as we broaden our economic base,
explore new markets and refine our growing industries than the collection of
women and men who have stepped forward today.
The Advisory Council will be chaired by Mr. Peter Woodward of
Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador. The Council's membership will include: Moya
Cahill, Howard Hewitt, Mary O'Brien, Bill Parsons, Anne Rose, Lewis Rose,
Derrick Rowe, Wes Simms, Kathryn Small, Steve Vessey, Bruce Wareham, Bill
Buffett, Clyde Melendy, and Ches Penney.
The members of the Council bring with them a broad range of
business backgrounds, from experience in traditional sectors such as the fishery
and farming, to expertise in newer areas, Mr. Speaker, such as high-tech
information services. Geographically, their backgrounds are all diverse, from
Arnold's Cove to Cormack to Labrador City, and many points in between.
The Advisory Council meet at least four times a year, and
will report to me at least twice during that period.
Mr. Speaker, I think you can see that this distinguished
group of citizens from Newfoundland and Labrador will bring with them a
diversity and wealth of knowledge that will well serve the people and Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that there is, within this group, not
only diversity of knowledge and expertise but perhaps even a diversity of
political representation. Although I note lately it is getting harder and harder
to find a Tory.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that the Premier is seeking further advice
on the economy and technology and based on his government's economic
performance, it is badly needed. What surprises me, Premier, what took so long?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today offers me the first opportunity in this House, to share
with my colleagues, information about the National Child Benefit.
The National Child Benefit is a national program that has the
agreement in principle of the federal government and all provinces and
territories (except Quebec). The parameters of the program have all been
developed and agreed upon collaboratively.
The $0.6 billion federal investment in the NCB recently
announced in the federal budget is viewed by this Province, and all
provinces/territories, as a beginning down payment on a long-term plan.
The primary goals of the NCB are to begin to address child
poverty, with particular emphasis on promoting attachment to the workforce,
resulting in fewer families having to rely on social assistance. In developing
the NCB, all provinces and territories recognized that there are significant
work disincentives in our social assistance programs that make it very difficult
for some families to re-enter the workforce. At the same time, some low income,
employed families, have fewer benefits and services than families on social
assistance. Some of the issues that contribute to this include the fact that
social assistance is based on family size and living arrangements, while wages
are not; social assistance benefits decline rapidly once a family begins
working; and there is a loss of supplementary benefits such as drugs, vision
care, municipal tax payments, etc. Social assistance is designed to meet basic
needs and so much includes these types of benefits, but there are unintended
consequences.
The National Child Benefit, by design, will assist families
on social assistance to make the transition to work by addressing these
disadvantages and concurrently raise incomes for low income employed families.
Although the precise details of how the NCB will work have
yet to be finalized, the general design features have been agreed upon. Both the
Federal and Provincial/Territorial Governments have a specific role in the
National Child Benefit. The federal role is based on an offer to begin assuming
some of the costs of provincial social assistance for children. In return,
provinces and territories must agree to reinvest the provincial monies freed up
by this approach in complementary programs and services for low income families
and their children.
These are the basic premises which explain the design of the
NCB. The two parts of the NCB will be the Federal Child Tax Benefit and
complementary provincial programs. The Child Tax Benefit will increase in 1998.
Concurrently, in all provinces, provincial social assistance payments - and that
is the portion related to children - will be decreased by an equivalent amount.
The income of social assistance families will not be affected, while low income,
employed families will experience an increase in their income.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Additional programs and services will be
funded by the provinces and territories aimed at supporting low income families,
including social assistance families.
The opportunity for this Province to identify monies for
programs and services to support families and their children is a very exciting
aspect of the NCB. I reiterate that the monies cannot be spent on roads, nor on
buildings, nor on other capital construction. A Federal-Provincial Framework
Agreement is currently under discussion to guide provincial reinvestments.
A range of program/service options must be developed and
costed for our government's consideration. Program examples, used during our NCB
discussions, include a provincial child tax benefit or top-up to the National
Child Benefit; an earned income tax credit; an extension of other in-kind
benefits such as drugs, vision care, and children's services such as child care.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list by any means, as no decisions have
been made. We will be the first to admit in this Province we need to improve our
support programs for families and children. What constitutes the best approach
for this Province will have to be carefully considered, but our desire to
emphasize prevention and early intervention has been previously noted.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude by restating the many
positive aspects of the NCB. The program will begin to address some of the
disincentives that exist for low-income families pursuing employment by
providing additional incomes and benefits. Social assistance families will not
receive any less money and will have their NCB benefits to count on when they
move into the workforce. Lastly, this Province, for the first time in many, many
years, will have a significant amount of monies to reinvest in improving
programs and services for families with children. For these reasons, this
Province has made the decision to give approval in principle to the program and
to continue with further discussions. We must work together in partnership with
the Federal Government and the other provinces and territories to ensure that
the National Child Benefit is a permanent and sustained program which will help
our children for years to come.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has not said anything today that she has not
said on previous occasions in the last several weeks. We should look at what
precisely has been said.
In the last paragraph she says: "Social assistance families
will not receive any less money...." But then, in the fourth or fifth paragraph
she says the "provincial social assistance payments... will be decreased, by an
equivalent amount," which basically says that the $60-a-month that will be
coming to low-income families in this Province will be clawed back if these
people continue to be on social assistance. Let us not disguise this. This is
simply a way in which we are going to say on the one hand - the minister said:
We are not going to decrease your social assistance payments. We are not going
to give them any more. That is precisely what is being said here. Let us not be
fooled by the words.
Therefore, when the Federal Government sends down its
$60-a-month, then the Provincial Government, for people who are not working,
they are going to say: We are going to claw that back. They get their
$60-a-month on the twentieth day of every month. The social assistance people
are paid twice a month. One has to ask and say: When will that deduction come?
Will it be spread out? But the intention here is quite clear.
We, on this side, are all for new programs to help those
people who do not have jobs to go to work. We ask ourselves, where are the jobs?
The assumption here is that all people who are on social assistance are staying
home, that they have disincentives not to go to work, lots of jobs out there,
and that they prefer to be in a comfortable pew. That is not the case. What we
are doing is, we are funding a program to help the working poor on the backs of
the very poorest children in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister, Paul Martin, said in his
Budget Speech: Opportunity lost in childhood means opportunity lost in
adulthood. The very poorest of children in this Province will continue to lose
the opportunities in childhood and continue to lose the opportunities in
adulthood. Also, the federal minister said: The Federal Government is willing to
move sooner than 1998 if the provinces are ready.
Now, Mr. Minister, I ask you: Why are we not ready? We have
poverty in this Province; 40,000-plus children go to school hungry every day. We
have seen all the stats. They are not new - they have been there for a long
time. We have more children hungry in Canada today than we had ten years ago. We
need this plan, we need it now, and I totally disagree that we can fund new
programs by taking money from the very poorest of families.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: And make no mistake about it, we are not
letting the children of this Province share in the opportunities that have been
given to them by the Federal Government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -
Quidi Vidi have leave?
By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for making available a copy of this
statement. I see that the minister's spin doctors have finally gotten to her and
she seems to now be fully aware that the federal Finance Minister, Paul Martin,
insists that the Province claw back every dollar that is given in the child tax
benefit to a family from the provincial Social Services. She now finally is
aware of that and says it in disguise in this Ministerial Statement. This is the
minister who, while she complains about disincentives in the social assistance
program, has clawed back, by her policy initiatives last year, the income tax
provisions for social assistance recipients who happened to have a job in the
previous year.
Mr. Speaker, what I see here is this minister cheerleading on
the Federal Government who has, over the past several years, removed $7 billion
from social transfers, deeply affecting this Province which had at least some
protection under the Canada Assistance Plan, which has been removed. And there
has not been a whimper out of this government, or the previous government, about
all of that. Mr. Speaker, what we need is an improvement. We need programs for
children. We need programs for children on social assistance, we need programs
for children who are not on social assistance but we also need to improve the
basic level of social assistance. A family of four, Mr. Speaker, is required to
spend 85 per cent of the basic social services budget in order to have a
nutritious food package. That is a statistic released by the Newfoundland
Dietetic Association and the minister ought to take that seriously when she
looks at the level of basic social assistance that her government gives to
people who are required to live on in this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today
are for the Premier.
Premier, your government, in its program review for parks,
clearly states that the privatization of public parks in the Province was not
advisable, particularly this year because of the Cabot 500th celebrations. Why
did you decide to go against your own staff recommendations and privatize,
risking turmoil with accommodations this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.
member that no parks are being closed this year. These parks are being
privatized. We have, to this date, more than 300 responses of enquiries of
people who are interested in looking at taking over these parks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: The document to which you are referring was a
document that was put together at the very beginning, before the end of last
year's tourism season when stats were not even known, that was put together. We
sought all opinions from all our staff right through the system, from the park
ranger to the directors in the department, to the deputy ministers, to Cabinet
ministers and on to Cabinet. We have to recognize that when we are looking at
program review and looking at change, we look at everything, we considered
everything. We know that this is a good year for these parks to be privatized.
Actually, I think any private entrepreneur or any employee who will take over
these parks will know that there was a fair chance given to them in this year
when we expect huge increased numbers of tourists in this year and we have very,
very adequate numbers of camping spaces available.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The last fifteen you privatized, five are now closed. I say
to the minister, five are closed to date. Parks and natural area division -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: This document, Mr. Speaker, September 27,
1996, is an extensive document by parks and natural areas division program
review. I ask the minister: Does she have another document that she can table
that gives us more up to date and more current information than the one that her
staff prepared for her?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the documentation I think has been
out there. The research has been shown. We have been providing to all of the
MHAs, to all of the employees, to every entrepreneur, all of the facts and
figures, all of the revenue figures, all of the equipment that goes with these
parks, the land mass that goes with these parks, all of the information that you
request is available and much of it has been discussed on television and in the
newspapers for the last two weeks.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Premier, in thousands of tourist information guides - paid by
taxpayers of this Province and published quite recently - it has detailed
information regarding our parks. It was provided to tourists across North
America and the entire world. Now that the parks are up for sale, this
information is outdated and the plans of thousands of tourists are in jeopardy.
I ask him, what was government thinking? Now why did this government waste
thousands, in fact hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars? Why did you make
a decision in haste to close those parks, jeopardizing what your government has
called the most important tourism year in our history?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline to my hon.
colleague that first of all the parks are not closing; the information in our
documents is certainly not outdated; that when tourists come this summer - when
they come to these parks, do you think we are going to burn them down, or...?
What do you anticipate we are going to do with out parks?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: They will be used this summer, and used well.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One-third of the ones that government attempted to privatize
are now closed, I say to the minister, with people coming from all around the
world. There are even operations and bus tours that have booked to enter
provincial parks in this Province that could be closed when they arrive, I say
to the minister.
Now, will the Premier confirm that just one day prior to the
park privatization announcement -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The minister might be taking a walk in the
park very soon.
- that $30,000 worth of promotional material was spent on our
provincial parks, information that was delivered to the Department of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation one day prior to this announcement? Will the Premier
confirm that this costly material, now outdated, is going to sit in boxes,
unused?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I really need to understand again
why you would consider this information to be outdated. These campgrounds, all
these picnic tables, everything, will be there. The barbecues will be there, and
the grates will be on the barbecues. This information is not outdated.
Furthermore, we have to outline that we have national parks
in our system. We have two very good national parks. Forty-eight per cent of the
camp spaces that are available in this Province at the moment are already in
private parks. We have a very adequate number. The bus tours that are booked,
and the people who are coming, we have not had any difficulties with
accommodating.
AN HON. MEMBER: Give us the numbers.
MS KELLY: Some numbers for bus tours, for instance, I was
talking to a young gentleman in early January - so several months ago - on the
Northern Peninsula, who told me he had eighty bus tours booked last summer.
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MS KELLY: Eighty.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, eighty was last year's number.
This year, as of January 1, he had more than 200. We have people coming.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us why she and the Premier, this
government, went against their own departmental recommendations that stated -
and it stated here specifically - adequate accommodations and diverse outdoor
recreational activities will be crucial to the enjoyment of the people's visit
this year. The park system will no doubt be utilized to the limits in response
to these demands. For these reasons it would be unwise to close parks or
experiment with extensive privatization during the 1997 season.
Why did you go against your own department's recommendations?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to categorically
state that I have not gone against my own department's recommendations. We are
not closing parks. The accommodations that we have all over this Province, in
our parks, in our hotels, in our B&B's, on our boats, everywhere, are very, very
adequate and we are very proud of them, and there is a diversity of even
campgrounds. In our private and our public and our national parks we have a
great range of diversity. There is no reason for you to lay awake in the
nighttime worrying.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have great reason to lie awake and worry, with a Minister
of Tourism who has made so many blunders over the past few months. I have every
reason to worry!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: When did your department change their mind
or advice? Was it on the advice of Premier Malcolm that you changed your mind on
those parks?
AN HON. MEMBER: The real Premier.
MR. SULLIVAN: The real Premier of this Province, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: Can he tell us why
students in this Province were given job applications for provincial parks just
two weeks before the announcement that those parks were going to be closed and
those job opportunities were yanked from them? I ask the Premier: Was that
decision to privatize parks made in that two-week period after he made
applications known, or did he already know it when he passed out those
applications that the parks would not be operating?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in my department, we have Visitor
Information Centres, parks, Commissariat House, museums. We offer a wide range
of employment to students in the summer and I anticipate that this summer, with
various government programs, through the private sector especially in the
private tourism sector, that there will be many, many jobs for students this
summer and something else that you probably do not need to worry about.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In case the minister did not understand the question, I will
simplify it. I ask the minister: When students were given job applications, two
weeks before the parks were announced to be privatized, did you know they were
going to be privatized, or was that decision made at the last moment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state as
previously, that we are not closing parks. There are still jobs within the
Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for the summer. So, was I to make
a decision that no students would have jobs this summer because we are
privatizing some of our parks? I anticipate that many students will get jobs in
the privatized parks, as well as throughout my department as in previous years,
but more than ever, we will have jobs in the private sector. Already, the
tourism establishments are pointing out to us that they are not even laying off
in this season, that in the winter season, they still have staff on and
anticipate hiring more than ever in the private sector this summer, and in
government, we will continue to have jobs.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Did you deal with integrity with students
when you gave them applications two weeks before the announcement, or was it a
last-minute decision to deal with those applications? They are
government-funded, government-paid-for, government- selected students in those
parks. Did you deal in honesty and sincerity and integrity with those students?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture
and Recreation.
MS KELLY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did deal with integrity on
this issue. Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a
supplementary.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has admitted it was a decision made within two
weeks of the applications going out. That is what the minister said.
Now, Premier, your minister has announced the privatization
of public beaches and she has retracted it; she has also announced the
privatization of a logger exhibit at Beothuck Park and retracted that. She has
announced the privatization of parks that were donated to the people of this
Province, a right that she should not have to do; she should not be allowed to
do it. Now, the minister clearly does not know what she is doing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: Will he do what is right
and honourable and reverse the decision on parks here in the Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister in question, is
the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation in this Cabot 500 Celebration
year. Now, let us look dispassionately, for a moment, at the facts.
Mr. Speaker, this year, the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador has been voted the No. 1 tourist destination in North America by the
American Bus Association
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the British travel writers
have named the Cabot 500 Celebration, this year, the No. 2 event,
internationally, in the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, at the prestigious
advertising awards in New York a few weeks ago, the Newfoundland Advertising
Campaign for the Cabot 500 Celebration won five gold international awards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what was to be a run of some
eighty or ninety buses concurrent with last year's record on the Great Northern
Peninsula, this year has become 200 bus tours on the Great Northern Peninsula.
Mr. Speaker, some 40,000 conventioneers representing over 100 conventions in the
City of St. John's alone is scheduled for this year, the Cabot 500 year!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a record number of cruise
ships is going to tour the ports of call of Newfoundland and Labrador this year.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, do I have confidence in this
minister? Yes, I have confidence in this minister!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Minister of Education. The
minister announced recently the lay-off of an additional 468 teachers in our
Province. In fact, we have seen the reduction of some 1,700 teachers since 1991.
That is in six short years, 1,700 teachers less operating in the schools in our
Province. The minister continues to justify this through student enrolment
decline. This type of mass reduction in educators cannot be an improvement for
the children of our Province, and I ask the minister: Why is he decimating our
education system? Why is he decimating our communities? Why is he threatening
the very existence of rural Newfoundland? Because, when we have numbers like
this, of teachers being reduced in our system, and when we have these kinds of
reductions in our staff, it is only a matter of time before we will have school
closures in these very communities that I am referring to. Why is he threatening
the very existence of rural Newfoundland in these decisions?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question, because it is a very serious and
important topic. The reality of it is that in the questions asked, we are doing
none of what the hon. member proposes.
As a matter of fact, for the record, it might be important to
note that in the last five years, the student population in the Province of
Newfoundland from Kindergarten to Grade XII, the reality is that we have a
shrinking system. In fact, it has reduced in the range of 15.1 per cent over
that period of time, and it has gone from student enrolments five years ago that
were in the range of 127,000 down now to school enrolments that are below
106,000. The reality is that when you have less students in big numbers, because
these are significant decreases, then you do not necessarily need the exact same
number of teachers that you had before.
What has been happening is that the size of the teacher
workforce and the size of the school population, from students and schools, are
following basically a parallel track. We have a 15.1 per cent decrease in the
number of students in our schools from K to XII; over the same period of time we
have had a decrease in the number of schools that comes out to 14.6 per cent.
There are schools closing in this Province every year by virtue of the fact that
there aren't students to go into them any more. Finally, over the same period of
time, the proportion of teachers available has shrunk by 14 per cent.
So the student population has declined by 15 per cent, the
number of schools that are in the Province has decreased by 14.6 per cent, and
the number of teachers who are still available to teach them has shrunk by 14
per cent. The government is signalling clearly we will provide professional,
trained, dedicated teachers into the system to match the size of the system.
When the system is shrinking, it stands to reason that there can be fewer
teachers if there are fewer students and fewer schools.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.
John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When the population of this Province voted for reform, they
voted for change. They were told the money saved would be redirected back into
the system. Why has this government hoodwinked the population of this Province?
I ask these particular questions of the hon. minister. Where are the real
classroom reforms? Where is the action on the Canning report? Why is there
nothing being done for students who require special education needs? Why is
there nothing being done for students who have particularly advanced educational
needs? Why is there a breach to the commitment to the children of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thought that the hon. member had been elected a year or so
ago and had been in the Legislature and following the debate closely since, but
he may have, in fact, missed some of the things that have been going on in
education.
The reform was made clear to the public, and by this
particular government, last year in the Budget, that we would concentrate, for
last year, on reform of the administration of education. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
it has occurred. On January 1 of this year, we formalized the moving from
twenty-seven administrative school board units down to ten school board units.
We did some administrative reform in the college system. There was some further
administrative re-arrangement in the rest of the post-secondary system. What we
are looking at now, and I invite the member to stay tuned for the government
laying out its plan in a week or so in the Budget, that we have indicated we
would concentrate very heavily and seriously on reforming the administrative
delivery structure for the system first. That has largely been accomplished.
Then we will clearly lay out a plan as to how we intend to see the rest of the
reform agenda and the positive impacts on the students in the classroom
unfolding over the next number of years.
Phase one and stage one was clearly concentrated upon,
clearly delivered, and there has been an increasing level of satisfaction with
respect to that restructuring at the board office level. Now we will focus our
attention in the next years on the classroom issues, on the delivery issues that
impact more directly on the students in the classes in the schools of the
Province, and we will unfold that plan, most likely in the Budget next week, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance and Treasury
Board is not here, I will have to ask a question of the acting minister, but I
am wary because the entire Cabinet may stand up in terms of acting. The question
deals with HST. The chairperson, Senator Michael Kirby, said this morning: It is
time for the provinces involved in the harmonization tax to look at giving
provincial rebates to lower-income families. Have the government looked at that,
and if they have, can they say today what provincial measures will be taken to
ensure that low-income families, which will be definitely hurt by this tax, will
not be hurt in perpetuity?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we join the Opposition in
missing the presence and the particular skill and guidance and capacity to
inform that is represented by the presence of the Minister of Finance and
Treasury Board in the House, and we look forward to the full text of his Budget
Speech next Thursday.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for
Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier really cannot answer or refuses to answer. Can he
say that he will follow suit with his counterparts such as Premier Frank
McKenna, Premier John Savage, and move expeditiously and quickly to introduce
rebates to low-income families and, as a result, stop them from being hurt
financially by this Harmonized Sales Tax, and ensure that the sales tax that he
is introducing will not be borne by that group of individuals?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the member
opposite recognizing the tremendous benefit to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in seeing for the first time since Confederation, since 1949, a massive
decrease in the overall sales tax burden of the Province, a reduction from 19.84
per cent down to 15 per cent. This is indeed the largest single reduction in the
sales tax burden of the Province since 1949.
With respect to whatever measures may be taken in the
interest of ensuring that low-income families in the Province are properly
looked after, all I can say is that the member will have to wait. I would ask
him to be patient and wait for the full statement of the Minister of Finance and
Treasury Board in his budget presentation next Thursday. I can only tell you
that the Minister of Social Services, with a particular responsibility in this
area, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, and indeed, all members of
this caucus, have been working hard looking at these questions, and we hope to
produce a good comprehensive plan next Thursday.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a very serious question for the Premier, a question
that has been asked of me many times these last few days. The only way I can
find out the answer, I guess, is to ask the Premier.
I would like to ask the Premier if the sixteen Cabinet
positions in his government require that ministers be full-time members of the
House of Assembly or as part-time duties if Cabinet ministers consider it
acceptable by the Premier?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, given that I have no idea
where this question is going I will sit down and wait for the next part of the
question.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is a simple question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a
supplementary.
MR. FITZGERALD: I asked the Premier if his Cabinet
ministers were required to accept full-time employment when they became Cabinet
ministers or are part-time duties acceptable to the Premier? That is a simple
question.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, most of them work double time
or triple time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon the Member for Bonavista South on a
supplementary.
MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the Premier how he can justify to
the taxpayer's of this Province, the poorest in all the Dominion of Canada,
paying the Minister of Mines and Energy a Cabinet Minister's salary while he is
out in the District of St. John's West actively campaigning on a full-time
basis? I ask the Premier how he can justify that to the taxpayers of
Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when I am forced, as I have
to do on occasion, to justify seeing the payment of this member's salary who has
just spoken it is easy to justify the salary of the Minister of Mines and
Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a
supplementary.
MR. FITZGERALD: My next question is to the Minister of
Mines and Energy. I ask the Minister of Mines and Energy if he would do the
honourable thing today and resign his position as Minister of Mines and Energy
and not be out bleeding the taxpayers of this Province while actively
campaigning, knocking on doors, in the district of St. John's West. We need a
full-time member and not a part-time member in the front benches of this
government.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: What are the major concerns that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador have with respect to his portfolio? They
want a minister who will be effective in ensuring that the great development of
the Terra Nova project is moving expeditiously ahead. I ask you if it is moving
ahead? Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. They want a minister to ensure that the third
oil field combined with Terra Nova and with Hibernia will bring to Newfoundland
and Labrador 340,000 barrels of light crude production a day by 1999, fully 36
per cent of the total supply of Canada. Is that being delivered? Yes, it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, they want a Minister of Mines
and Energy who will see to it that the largest and most technologically advanced
smelter refinery complex on the planet earth is being built right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that going ahead? Yes, it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we want a Minister of Mines
and Energy who will see to it that the transshipment of oil occurs right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that going ahead? Mr. Speaker, if we were paying
this Minister of Mines and Energy what he is worth we would bankrupt the
Province for sure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a
final supplementary.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Premier makes my point
exactly. The reason why we need a full-time minister is to bring in a tax regime
for Voisey's Bay. The reason why we need a full-time minister is to implement
and answer the taxpayers and the poor people in this Province when they go to
the gas tank tomorrow and pay another five or ten cents per litre. That is why
we need a full-time Minister of Mines and Energy, and I call on the Premier to
be responsible and fill the seat with somebody who will be here full-time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me in a more serious
vein, more serious than the question deserves, give this answer. The Minister of
Mines and Energy in every way, shape, and form, is fulfilling every part of his
obligation as a member of the Cabinet and doing so in an extraordinary fashion.
The member opposite should seek to emulate him in the carrying out of his
duties.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are for the Minister of Social Services. We have
all heard a lot of talk about the tragedy in Canada of child poverty. Now, Mr.
Speaker, the stats for Newfoundland and Labrador are alarming. While we agree on
this side, that the federal initiatives are appropriate to get people back to
work we have a real concern that we are taking food from the tables of the
poorest families in this Province to fund these new programs. We are not giving
them any less money but they are not getting their fair share. How can the
minister justify taking money from the poorest of children to fund programs to
assist the working poor, to give incentives to those who are out there willing
to get jobs and able to find them?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all I would like to say that I think the member
opposite is starting to understand the concept of National Child Benefit. It was
designed and it is going to be used for low income earning families. That was
what it was designed to do and that is what it will do.
I ask my hon. colleague across the way, what is wrong with
assisting social assistance recipients to move into the workforce, when I might
add - when, Mr. Speaker, let me say, that a single parent on average, on social
assistance, with one child, receives an average of $500 to $1,120 a month on
social assistance, when a single parent with one child working in this Province
gets an average of $740? What is wrong with assisting those people into the
workforce and giving them some security? I ask, what is wrong with that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period is over.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with leave, if we have the
consent of the House, I would like to take advantage if it is appropriate now.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Premier have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to, on behalf of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, pay tribute to two former Members of the
Legislature who passed away since last week, who met in this place, and I am
referring to Mr. Gerald Hill, who was a veteran of politics in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, who passed away recently.
Mr. Hill was born at Wesleyville, Bonavista Bay, the son of
Captain Sydney and Sophie Hill of Wesleyville. He joined the Confederation Life
Insurance Company as an agent and rose up through the ranks of that company. He
entered politics in 1960 and was elected in the District of Labrador South,
which he represented for some thirteen years. He was a member of Mr. Smallwood's
Cabinet for eight years, and served there without portfolio. Mr. Hill has made a
contribution to the economic, social and political life of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
On behalf of all members I would like to express condolences
to his wife, Frances, to his daughter, Gerry Patricia, son-in-law Dr. Raymond
Winsor, granddaughter, Victoria Winsor, and sister, Martha Andrews.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note the passing of a
Member of the House, a more recent Member of the Legislature, indeed one who
served with many of the members here today, and I am referring to Mr. Jim
Kelland, former MHA for Naskaupi. Mr. Kelland was, by training, a veteran in the
telecommunications field. He worked all over this Province and all over northern
Canada before making Labrador his permanent home. He had been, while there,
prior to entering politics, a Justice of the Peace. He had been publisher and,
with his wife Louise, the creator of a newspaper in the north. He served as the
Mayor of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, was a dynamic man who gave freely of his time
in a wide variety of volunteer fields. He was elected to the House of Assembly
in 1985. He served as a Liberal spokesperson in opposition to a variety of
portfolio areas: public works, agriculture, northern development, tourism. He
was a frequent critic and commented on the attempts to redevelop Churchill
Falls; it was a great passion for him. He entered the Cabinet in 1989, became
the Minister of Environment, and served there for the Wells' administration for
several years.
Mr. Speaker, we want to express condolences on behalf of all
members, and indeed the people of the Province, to his family, to Louise, to
Jackie Holwell, to his children, James, John and Jennifer, and to acknowledge
both the service of Jim Kelland as a son of this Province and a member of this
place, and that service as well of Mr. Hill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, join with the Premier in extending, on behalf of our
caucus, condolences to the families of Mr. Hill and Mr. Kelland, and certainly
to comment on their contribution, having spent a significant part of their life
in service here in the House of Assembly and to the Province in general.
To their families and to their loved ones we certainly send
our condolences during this difficult time over this past while.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the
Opposition in asking you, on behalf of members of the House, to send the
condolences of all hon. members to the families of Mr. Kelland and Mr. Hill, who
have served this Province's public life in the House of Assembly, and both of
them in Cabinet. It is an unusual thing for citizens of this Province to have an
opportunity to serve their Province in this way, and I think they deserve the
recognition that we give them in recognizing that formally on occasions such as
this, and I am pleased to join in the request to have you send condolences to
their families.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with
section 13 of the Auditor
General's Act, I hereby table the Auditor General's Report on the John Cabot
1997 500th Anniversary Corporation.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the
Minister of Finance, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act."
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition from approximately 250
residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are petitioning this
House as follows:
WHEREAS poverty and its effects are serious problems for so
many in this Province and things are getting worse - now, more than one-third of
Newfoundland and Labrador children live in families on social assistance; and
WHEREAS child poverty and hunger are a sad reality which
hurts children today and their chances for the future in education and in life.
Hungry children cannot learn; and
WHEREAS a universal school lunch program would provide a
stigma-free way of ensuring every school child a good, nutritional meal every
day; and
WHEREAS school reform in the Province will result in very
significant savings in education costs, thereby making funds available to
improve the quality of education and the quality of students' lives;
WE, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct
the government to establish a universal, comprehensive school lunch program for
every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give
our children a better chance.
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners recognize the grave need that
exists in our Province amongst children because of the effects of hunger. The
recent report of the review of special education by Dr. Patricia Canning,
recognized the grave need and the grave problem in this Province.
She devoted a whole
chapter on poverty and education and said
at the outset of that chapter, that Newfoundland and Labrador experiences the
highest rates of both family poverty and adult literacy of all the provinces of
Canada, and that the poverty rate for Canadian families in 1992, was 13.3 per
cent but in Newfoundland, over 18 per cent of families representing over 38,000
children live below the poverty line.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Canning recognized that based
on Statistics Canada reports of family incomes, it is estimated that at least 50
per cent of the school population is at risk of low educational achievements due
to factors associated with low income in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this is a
very, very serious problem.
The statistics alone, of course, do not tell the story. The
story is of hungry children - children who do not have an adequate nutritional
basis on which to learn, an adequate nutritional basis on which to be able to
participate in the advantages that school is supposed to offer them for their
lives and for their future.
This petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed and supported by people
from all over the Province. I note some of the signatures are from Bonavista
Bay, from Labrador, from various parts of the St. John's metropolitan area. The
single parents at MUN have circulated this petition, Mr. Speaker, because they
recognize that child hunger and child poverty is an especially difficult problem
for single families and single parents. The poverty rate, in fact, for children
living in single parent homes is estimated to be 73 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that
is a very, very serious problem, one that must be recognized on many fronts - on
many fronts. That is why I have criticized, as have others, the fact that the
new child tax credit, once given to poor children, will be clawed back by the
Province, but that, in a sense, is another issue.
Here is an opportunity - Mr. Speaker, when we see the savings
that the Province is making in its Education budget, in school busing, in school
consolidation, in changes in the student-teacher ratio resulting in another
estimated $20 million to $25 million being saved on teachers' salaries this year
or next year, there is plenty of money being saved within the education budget
itself, that can be redirected to this program. And we are talking here, not
about a program of volunteers; we are not talking about a program that can only
exist where there is a charity-based organization in the community to make it
happen. We need a program that is universal, that exists in every school in the
Province regardless of the ability of the community to support that program with
volunteer effort. It should be comprehensive, planned by, initiated by, and
directed by the government of this Province to ensure -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: - that it takes place everywhere.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: That is what these petitioners want, Mr.
Speaker, and I support it wholeheartedly.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today and speak to the petition that has
been so ably presented by my colleague to the right.
Mr. Speaker, there is no greater tragedy in this country than
the tragedy of child poverty. We should be, as legislators, ashamed of ourselves
for managing the resources of this country so poorly that we have increased
child poverty in the last ten years. Ten years ago we were saying that by this
time, in 1996-1997, we would eliminate child poverty in this country. Instead,
today there are more people in need in this country than there were ten years
ago, more children who go to school hungry. The Williams Royal Commission report
said it, the Canning report said it. We found out when we were doing the study
for the special interests of children that it was said then. The parents said
it, the teachers said it, the clergymen said it, and the public said it. They
all said that child poverty is a major inhibitor to the growth and development
of the children.
We know that children who go to school hungry behave just
like anybody else. If we were to say, for example, to all of this House today:
You come to this House and you do not have any breakfast, do not have any lunch,
and you come in here in the afternoon and you sit here and you try to
concentrate, put yourself in the position of a child, a six-year-old, a
ten-year-old, who goes to school with no breakfast, has no money for lunch, and
that child is expected to concentrate. Children are just like adults. They get
irritable, they have poor attention spans, they have poor concentration, and it
is shown that children of the poor have higher rates of absenteeism; they have
the very high rates of school dropout. Why? They simply are not able to
function. They do not have equal opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) laughing at you?
MR. H. HODDER: We have a situation in this Province today
where the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture laughs at the children. He is
laughing at the children out there who are poor. He is laughing across the House
here and making fun of the fact that we on this side would speak up for hungry
children. He cannot have it two ways. He is either with and identifies with the
poor of this Province, or he does not. In this particular case, by his actions
in supporting the claw backs to the child tax benefit, he is saying it is okay
to take from the poorest of the people in this Province to fund programs. He
cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, will be
constantly speaking up for the children of this Province. We will support the
kinds of petitions that have been raised here by my colleague. Until this
government say they are going to give a fair share to the children of this
Province, then they will not even have gone near to fulfilling their mandate
they talked about in the famous Red Book. I did not see any ticks in the report
card that talked about addressing child poverty - that was not there, no ticks
for child poverty. In fact, maybe we should have given the report card on what
is not there. We should have said: Here is what is not in the report card. The
fact that we have 45,000 children going to school hungry today, that is the kind
of stuff that we should see addressed, not those whimsical, nonsensical
statements, and paying the $25,000 or $30,000 to prepare a report card that is
self-congratulatory and, of course, says very little.
We should have put that kind of money into child poverty and
then we probably might be able to do a little bit about it. As of now, we have
situations where the children of this Province want food on their tables; they
want food in the school system. Until we address that, then we cannot pretend to
be really sincere about issues that affect the livelihoods of the youngest
people in this country.
As I said earlier, children today who are hungry in childhood
and have to do without food in childhood, these children will not have
opportunities others have in adulthood.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition to the House
of Assembly to ask the House to immediately reverse the decision on the
privatization of the provincial parks. The petition reads as follows:
We the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to
petition the Provincial Government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation and the Premier to immediately reverse the decision to privatize the
provincial parks, as they are the people's resource. We feel that this decision
was made in haste without the consultation of the people of the Province, the
people who own these parks.
Mr. Speaker, the program review which was dated September 27,
1996, I imagine people went to great lengths - it cost the Province a great deal
of money to put together this program review, and the program review itself says
that this year is not a good year to experiment with privatization of provincial
parks.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister feels that this program
review is no good? I wonder does she have any confidence in the people in her
own department who have put together this program review. I wonder if she feels
that the people who have conducted this program review were competent. Because
throughout the review it states that the private operators do not operate parks
at the same standard that the provincial parks are operated. Mr. Speaker, it
states that 1997, being the year of the Cabot 500 Celebrations, and due to the
influx of people expected into our Province, they do not recommend experimenting
with privatization of parks this year. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the
minister is going against her own review. She is probably as competent as she
feels the review is itself.
The minister states that the parks are not going to close,
Mr. Speaker. She says that these parks are not going to close. They are not
going to burn the parks down, she said today. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if
all of these parks are not privatized, is the minister going to guarantee us
today in this House that the Province will remain the operator of these parks
for the Cabot 500 Year? Is she going to guarantee that these parks will remain
open even if the Province has to operate them as provincial parks?
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 there were twenty-eight parks cut from
the provincial park system. Fifteen of them went for privatization and of those
fifteen, in the program review it states that there are eleven still operating.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, even if these parks are privatized, will they
remain open this year? Because there are parks that are in the hands of private
operators out there today that are not open. Mr. Speaker, there are parks out
there, in the hands of private operators, that are not open.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of these parks had land donated by
private individuals throughout the Province. These parks that had land donated
by private families, by private individuals, what does the minister plan to do
with this land that was donated by private individuals? Mr. Speaker, this is a
sham, this is a disgrace. It is absurd and it is disgusting that this Province
would privatize these provincial parks. These are the people's resource.
She states that 48 per cent of the campgrounds are now
operated by private individuals. Mr. Speaker, the program review, throughout, is
full of accusations that the private operators either do not have the resources
or do not have the interest to put the money into the parks that the Provincial
Government does, that they do not operate the parks to the standard that the
Provincial Government is operating them.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder, seeing as how the minister has so much
confidence in these operators now, why did she not have confidence in the
private operators when she conducted the program review?
Mr. Speaker, the minister states that there is no need to lie
awake at night and worry. Well, I will say to you today that the parks workers
are lying awake at night worrying.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. OSBORNE: With leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member does not have leave.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the
petition presented by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South.
MR. TULK: A good idea.
MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, it is
a good idea. It is too bad that he and his government have not taken the advice.
What the minister has said, I believe - and the minister is
acting on behalf of Cabinet instruction; it is a government policy and she is
the minister responsible, she is articulating that government policy - is that
they are about to save $1.8 million. Is that correct? I believe it is $1.8
million with respect to the provincial park system.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible) projected.
MR. E. BYRNE: That is projected, right.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at two or three fundamental
issues dealing with this very important issue that people are extremely upset
about. The first one is consultation.
Over the last several months while program review was being
conducted, people in this Province had no idea that the provincial park system
was, in fact, on the table to be privatized. Two years ago, in 1995, another
Minister of Tourism stood up in this House and closed twenty-one parks and said
that we would save a little in excess of $1 million. As a result of that saving,
we are going to redirect it into the provincial park system to upgrade the
parks, to hold it, because it belongs to the people of the Province. Mr.
Speaker, there was no consultation whatsoever, and that has infuriated many,
many people who use these parks for recreation, for holiday purposes.
Secondly, I would like to talk about the idea of where these
parks came from. When the minister announced that a number of parks would be
privatized, people were upset for a legitimate reason. Our tax dollars have paid
for those parks; they have paid for them dearly. It was a provincial park system
put in place to attract tourism, controlled by the Province, controlled by the
government, for the people of the Province. There is no rationale - no
legitimate rationale - provided by the minister with respect to the
privatization of parks.
Would it not have been better, like other provinces have
done, and other states within America have done, to look at attracting
commercial operations to come into the park to run concessions, to make the
provincial park system more accessible, to offer more concessions?
Mr. Speaker, we, as a Province, do not have to sell or give
away the provincial park system in order to accomplish what government wants to
accomplish. If government wants to accomplish added attractions to the
provincial park system that will bring in new tourists, if government wants
those new tourists to come and spend new tourist dollars, it does not have to
turn over to private interest the provincial park system.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has said publicly, and she said
again in the House today, that the number of expressions of interest that they
have received positive-wise has been overwhelming. There is no doubt, I say to
the minister, that when you have a provincial park system with specific
provincial parks that are so attractive in terms of a private initiative, there
is no doubt in my mind that there has been a number of private investors or
private groups coming forward to say, `We would like to have it'. They will make
money on it.
AN HON. MEMBER: Will they?
MR. E. BYRNE: They know they will. That is why they are
interested. It is the same rationale this government used to sell Hydro, because
it was a good investment for the private sector. Everybody would be interested
in purchasing that.
Another reason which is completely without foundation, she
said that the provincial park system will be open, will be accessible, to the
provincial park employees to take it over if they wish. Mr. Speaker, let us
investigate that a little further. While the opportunity may be there, the
limited resources of those employees to take it over are not there.
If you look at the parks that were privatized two years ago
and asked just one question - one very simple, straightforward question: How
many of the provincial park employees who were working in parks that were
privatized two years ago, are actually working in those parks today?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? All of them? Not according to
the provincial park employees I have talked to. In parks that were privatized
two years ago, a significant number of them are not working in those parks
today.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? What is that, minister?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: None of them, I would say. The minister was
on a public show and talked about it. She said: I do not know the answer to
that. The reality is that none of them are. The reason, simply put, is that
government - the question that must be asked is what else is for sale in this
Province. What else is for sale? I guess we will know within the Budget, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will say that there
is no legitimate reason for the sale of these parks. We are nickel-and-diming
the resource of the people, and people will not accept it. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
MS KELLY: I wish to respond to my hon. colleagues with
some great disbelief at some of the statements that have just been made in this
House. To begin with, I find it quite surprising that my hon. colleagues who
call themselves Tory do not believe in privatization when, on many occasions in
the past, they have clearly gone on the public record stating they do, and we
have seen many supportive people in our Province state that we have to make
choices. Our government had to make choices. That is why we did the program
review. This is a result of our choices. We consulted with people in the
pre-budget consultation. They said: health care, education and social programs
were their priority. We are responding through program review and we have a
very, very good privatization program put in place.
The reason, the last time that parks were privatized, why
none of the employees are working in private parks, is because of the labour
agreements that this government has in place. All of the previous employees in
the privatized parks before were absorbed in our present parks system. Out of
the ninety-two laid off employees this time, forty-seven will go to work in the
core park system that remains. Three of the vacancies that presently are
occurring will not be filled. We are working with all the employees who are
interested in takeover of parks, and we are working with them in very clear,
concise terms. We are outlining to them, working with them on business plans. We
are working with both the union and Treasury Board to have severance packages
that can enhance takeovers.
We know that our employees are the ones who have the
experience and the training, and we will work with them. Many of them will work
in partnership with concessionaires who are already into parks, or other private
entrepreneurs. It is called public-private partnerships. Many of our employees
are addressing that. Some are wanting to do this themselves.
We do have a system of parks left. I again reiterate, we are
not closing parks. We will have a core system of thirteen parks, three keystone
and ten campgrounds. We are not selling the people's land. No land will be sold.
All the land that needs protection for ecological reasons will be protected. We
are either leasing land or giving licences to occupy.
I find it absolutely astounding, your research on what other
provinces have done. You obviously are not aware of the different labour
contracts that are in place all through this country. In other provinces they
are able to do this, they are able to privatize some of the operations within
parks and contract them out, and then leave the parks in the provincial parks
system. We have a labour contract in this Province that that is not possible to
do, and that is why the approach we are taking is the correct approach. I would
also like to point out to my hon. colleague that the people who made these
decisions were competent. They were the people who work in my department; they
were the program review committee. They are very competent people.
I also find it very insulting to the private entrepreneurs of
this Province that you have the nerve to say that there will be no standards in
private parks. We have some very, very fine standards in private parks. We have
more than 300 people who are interested in proposals to take over these parks
and we will work very closely with them.
Sure, our park workers are worried. Those who are unemployed
in this Province are - we have a high unemployment rate. Sure, they are worried.
But we are doing everything possible. Over half of them will go back into the
core system. Some will retire through the early retirement program and some will
want to work in partnership or alone to set up businesses. Is there anything the
matter with becoming an entrepreneur? Is being an entrepreneur a dirty word all
of a sudden in this Province? I would like to tell you that it is not, and we
believe in assisting business, and in assisting our employees to take over
business, and we will work very closely with them.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition of over 4,000 names. The
petition reads: `Save our Mounties.'
AN HON. MEMBER: What?
MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, he can laugh at
this, but this was a petition that was circulated around the area, and I say
that many of his constituents signed the same petition. I do not have it, but I
know they took
part in the campaign, and rightly so. It reads:
We, the concerned citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, are
proud to have the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide policing
services to our communities.
We demand that our government consider the impact to the
citizens of our Province of further reductions and/or elimination of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police. This issue is much too important to be decided by
government alone and we ask that all citizens be consulted before any decisions
are made.
Mr. Speaker, this particular petition was presented to me a
number of months ago at a rally that was held in my district but it encompassed
the district of Trinity North and some from the district of Terra Nova as well.
I might add that it was the second biggest rally held in Bonavista.
AN HON. MEMBER: The first one.
MR. FITZGERALD: No, the biggest rally, not the first one,
but the biggest rally was held on February 21, 1996. That was the biggest rally
that was ever held in the district of Bonavista South, a day after the Premier
had his, which was the smallest rally that was ever held there.
Mr. Speaker, not to be sidetracked, what these people are
asking, what those 4,000 signatures are asking is for the minister to come out
and consult with the people before he makes any decision on what policing is
going to look like in rural Newfoundland in the future. The minister, in his
wisdom, went out and met with the Superintendent of the RCMP sometime prior to
Christmas, and at that particular time, indicated that while he would like to
see two police forces continue to police rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it may
be that we will have only one.
This same minister is the chairman of the Program Review
Committee, Mr. Speaker, and right away the red flags went up: What is the
minister trying to do here? So, some of the people in the rural districts,
especially the committee members of the Crime Prevention Committees and other
people who work very closely with the RCMP and saw the very valuable service
they were providing, said: We are not going to stand for this. We are going to
protest. We are going to parade. We are going to do whatever we have to do, in
order to continue to have the RCMP police our towns and our communities. Because
they felt they should have had a choice; they feel that you should not put a
price tag on everything in this Province. Some things, Mr. Speaker, deserve to
be considered without considering the cost of it - unless it is astronomical,
then we have to be reasonable, I suppose.
The minister, in his usual bully fashion, said: This is
wrong. We cannot allow the RCMP to go out and take
part in demonstrations. We
cannot allow police cruisers to be leading parades. I have to stop this. So the
minister, in his wisdom, hopped on the plane and away he goes up to Ontario to
see his federal cousin, the Solicitor General, Mr. Gray. He said: This has to be
stopped. Send a directive down to the Superintendent of the RCMP and tell them
they are not allowed to take
part in this. They are not allowed to be out
protecting their jobs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, the demonstration that I saw
was not a situation where the RCMP were protecting their jobs as much as the
people wanting to be consulted and wanting to voice their opinion and have a say
in who was put in the community to police and protect them. It was wrong for the
minister to go out and announce those changes, announce what he considered, Mr.
Speaker, as something that was probably happening or about to happen, without
consulting the people.
Some of those RCMP officers were involved with the Cabot
500th corporation, heavily involved with volunteer groups in the community and
all of a sudden they were sidetracked. What he did was remove a group of
volunteers involved in community work, Mr. Speaker, working with the community,
working with the schools, working with the churches, the Lions Clubs and the
Legions. He took them out of doing community work and the red flags went up
because now they have to go and see what they can do in order to fight for their
jobs and protect their families.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this had nothing to do with
not wanting the Newfoundland Constabulary to police them -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to rise today on behalf of my colleague and
support him on a 4,000 name petition - very significant, not something to laugh
at, Mr. Speaker.
If you look around the Province, Mr. Speaker, when the RCMP
started their campaign - which the minister did not want them to start - you saw
very quickly what support the RCMP have around this Province. What the real
shame of this debate is, Mr. Speaker, what the real shame is, is that it is
unnecessary because we have two fine police forces in this Province, the RCMP
and the RNC, both who have been in harmony in this Province for years and worked
together. Mr. Speaker, more than police forces, these people in the communities,
in the bigger communities and also in rural Newfoundland, are a very important
part of those communities. The RNC and the RCMP are the two police forces that
we can be proud of, one is a provincial police force and, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP
is a national police force that we should all be proud of.
I, for one, grew up in a small town in Baie Verte,
Newfoundland, where the RCMP were a big part of my growing up, especially in
sports activities and other things throughout the town. Mr. Speaker, there was a
lot of respect for the police force. Then again, on the other side of it, the
RNC officers, I know quite a few of them, especially in the St. John's, Corner
Brook and Labrador City area and, Mr. Speaker, I also know what their
contributions have been to the community.
What bothers me about this entire debate, Mr. Speaker, is
that we have to have the debate in the first place. From what I can understand,
from talking to both groups, is that the bottom line, the fiscal dollar I guess,
has never been proven. Which is right and which is wrong? Why was it done in the
first place? The RCMP had their arguments, the RNC would have their arguments on
it but both of them really were providing good services to this Province and
they did not want to have to go campaign like the minister forced them to do.
They did not want to go out in this Province - the RCMP has never done it, as
far as I can understand and neither have the RNC. Mr. Speaker, they did not want
to take that route.
I talked to some of those individuals, who I know personally,
and they were annoyed that they had to take that action, Mr. Speaker. Basically
the RCMP and RNC go about their duties, they perform them as well as they can
and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that most people in this Province would commend
them for their services but aside from their professional services, Mr. Speaker,
it goes much deeper than that. What these people contribute to the communities
that they live in, to the young people, with young people's programs, with
sports and so on is much deeper than what they do as a profession. What they are
really bothered with, Mr. Speaker, is this whole procedure and how the
consultation process was not in effect. So we have to back step a little bit and
look at what the whole reason was for this in the beginning. Like I just
referred to, Mr. Speaker, the people I have spoken to, in both forces, said they
wish they never had to take those routes.
Then of course we have the RNC (inaudible) against the RCMP,
Mr. Speaker, which nobody wants. What they want to do is remain what they were,
which was living in harmony, working in this Province in harmony and serving the
people - what they were paid to do and doing a good job of it. Also, Mr.
Speaker, a point was made that the RCMP have resources at the national level
that compliment the RNC. They co-operate, Mr. Speaker, and use each other in the
Province to provide the best service for the safety of the people in this
Province.
The RCMP have access to the national resources which the RNC
may not have in the Province and I am sure, on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, they
have co-operated and collaborated and joined forces to do what they are put here
to do and that is to fight crime, Mr. Speaker, here in the Province and in the
country. So my whole point in my supporting this petition, Mr. Speaker, is that,
No. 1, the RCMP and the RNC are two forces of which we can be very proud and
served us in rural and urban Newfoundland very well over the years, and lived in
harmony and co-operated with each other.
No. 2, Mr. Speaker, is: What was the reason in the beginning,
why we started this, and why are we divided in our police forces having to go
out in force to put forward their case, Mr. Speaker, in public and which they
did not want to do? But I can assure the minister of this when he goes back to
Ottawa, that he saw very quickly what the support of the RCMP has in this
Province when he saw the motorcades and so on and I can assure him of this also:
that the RNC have the same type of support. People are not judging RNC and RCMP,
they don't want to because they believe we have two very good police forces of
which we can be proud and that we support, Mr. Speaker, so the whole process was
flawed from the beginning with lack of consultation and we should support both
RNC and RCMP in this Province, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: - and I am sure that we could remain with
two entities that can work in this Province for a long time to come. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition.
We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to
petition the provincial government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation and the Premier, immediately to reverse the decision to privatize the
provincial parks as they are the people's resource. We feel that this decision
was made in haste, without any consultation with the people who own the parks,
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to present this petition
in the House. I had the opportunity several days ago to attend a meeting where
there were quite a number of people who were very concerned about provincial
parks in this Province and the minister - unfortunately she is not here now -
but the minister sent two people from her department to attend this meeting and
to listen to the concerns of others. The minister had been invited to that
particular meeting, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately could not attend.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people who were at
that meeting were very concerned about the provincial parks in this Province,
about the parks being privatized, and how some of these people who had, maybe
two weeks holidays a year, spend them in our provincial parks and who spend
every weekend that they can, Mr. Speaker, travelling to one park or another
around this Province, and they were very concerned. As a matter of fact, one
gentleman who was there with, I believe there were two children, raised the
point: don't they realize that these parks belong to the people of this Province
and the government should not have the right to take those parks away, to
privatize them and to leave maybe, some of these people with absolutely nowhere
to go?
Now the minister said, Mr. Speaker, she was astounded to hear
some of the comments made by my colleague and, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that,
I am astounded by some of the comments the minister made. I don't know how many
phone calls the minister has received but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I have
received quite a few. The next one I get that agrees with the privatization of
the parks in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, will be the first one. It
will be the first one.
Now I realize that some of the members of course can take off
at Easter and go to Florida for two or three weeks; some of them are very
fortunate that maybe they can do that three, four or five times a year. I can't
do that but certainly some of them can. I know that my hon. friend over there
can, but some of the people over there, Mr. Speaker, should certainly listen to
the people. They should certainly listen to some of their constituents who, by
the way, have phoned me from every part of this Province and at this particular
meeting, Mr. Speaker, referred to the provincial parks in this Province, as
their trip to Florida, the two weeks of holidays that they get in the summer was
their trip to Florida, or their trip to Bermuda, or their trip to wherever. That
was their holiday, to take their families and go out and camp.
I was glad to see a reversal when they mentioned, certainly,
Topsail Beach, with which I have been more than familiar for a goodly number of
years. All of a sudden, I guess, a bright light went off and somebody realized
the Rotary Club had been servicing that particular area of Topsail for goodness
knows how many years. So it is amazing to stand here and hear the minister say
that she is astounded. I think the only thing she should be astounded at is
maybe her knowledge of exactly what was going on here. I wonder who made the
decision. I wonder, was the decision made by Cabinet or was the decision made by
Malcolm? I begin to wonder who is running the ship.
I will touch here briefly as well on the gravel pits. I also
had numerous calls from people throughout this Province who do not even go to
provincial parks, who actually go to gravel pits. Let me tell you something, Mr.
Speaker; these people are just as clean and just as good citizens of this
Province as anybody who goes to a provincial park or to a private park.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FRENCH: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, I say to my colleague.
I would just like to say, and I will be brief, that I hope
the government rethinks this. The people of this Province own the parks, they
deserve the parks, and there is no way in this world that these parks should be
privatized. Hopefully I will be back here day in and day out presenting such
petitions until somebody comes to their senses.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to support the petition so ably put forward by
my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, in saying that the residents
of Newfoundland and Labrador wish to petition the provincial government, the
Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and the Premier, to immediately
reverse the decision to privatize provincial parks, as they are the people's
resource.
Mr. Speaker, what a lot of people are upset about, about this
privatization scheme with provincial parks - once again words that have been
used from this side of the House many, many times - is the lack of consultation.
Why weren't the people asked to put forward their suggestions of what might
happen to those parks, or a way that they could improve the parks, a way they
could make them profitable, a way that it could be done better?
The parks are costing us money, and there is no doubt they
are. I do not think there are many parks around Newfoundland and Labrador today
that are profitable. I do not think there are; I would be awfully surprised. If
people take those parks over to operate them and try to make them profitable, I
doubt very much if many of the people who use them now will be able to afford to
use them because, as the member said, this is a holiday resort for many people
in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Many people have their soft-top camper, or
they have their canvas tent for the children, and they go out and set up in the
park and spend their weekends there and form bonds with certain people from
certain communities, and this is where they meet. This is their holiday, this is
their resort, and they would like to be able to afford to continue to do that.
We saw the Minister of Government Services and Lands bring a
piece of legislation through this House a few short months ago that was highly
discriminatory against the poorer people of this Province when he came out and
said: We are going to sell you your land now. We want $2,500 for your land. We
will give you a little bit of time to pay, but if you want to go to that cottage
that you enjoy so much going to, we are going to want some money for it.
I fear that if you leave the Minister of Municipal and
Provincial Affairs alone with his regionalization plan, you will find out that
same piece of land that the Minister of Government Services and Lands sold to
you a few short months ago you will now be getting a tax bill for, because it
will be part of that regionalization scheme.
This is what government is doing. They are reaching out and
trying to solve the problems of this Province, the financial problems of this
Province, on the backs of the working poor and on the backs of the people, Mr.
Speaker, who can least afford it.
We talked about gravel-pit camping, something which a lot of
people in this Province enjoy. Not everybody goes to a provincial park. A lot of
people go to their favourite meadow or their favourite pit. I will tell you that
they are not people who go out and flick their garbage out in the ditch or take
their waste disposal and throw it in the nearest stream, either. It is people,
for the most part, who go out and clean up the ditches and clean up the pits. It
is people who usually leave their camping area much cleaner than they found it.
What is wrong with going out into your favourite gravel pit, I ask people
opposite, and putting on a good feed of salt beef and cabbage? What is wrong
with that? Nothing wrong with it. What is wrong with going out and seeing a
bunch of Newfoundlanders being happy? I ask the people opposite.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: I say, yes, if you eat too much salt beef
and cabbage, you begin to look like the fat cat of the Liberal Party, the `Old
Suspenders' there, Mr. Speaker. There is more elastic on the Government House
Leader than there is in a garter belt factory up in Ontario. A lot of elastic, I
say, in order that he can keep it all together. The fat cat of the Liberal party
knows. It would not be the first time he ate salt beef and cabbage out in the
meadow, I can tell you, and he has it all there to show it, he has it all there
to prove it. All you have to do is look at it. The pease pudding and the duff,
nothing like it, I say to the hon. people opposite.
Why should we as Newfoundlanders be deprived of being allowed
to continue on with that privilege? Why should we not be allowed to carry on
with that tradition? All of a sudden, we get a government member who is taken
from the municipal arena and put into the provincial arena and put in Cabinet,
and wants to bring about all those changes.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: Wants to bring about all those changes -
wants to bring the Premier back.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: Does not know what it is to be a
Newfoundlander.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: Lived away from the Province for the last
twenty years.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: No, because you are too nasty.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. FITZGERALD: I shall return.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I did not think the member was being nasty at all, Mr.
Speaker. He was making some very good points. I am sure he will have a chance to
get up and make some good points again. I do not think you will see the last of
these petitions, because people are right now, today, circulating -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the hon. member presenting a petition?
MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting a petition.
I am presenting a petition to the House of Assembly:
We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to
petition the Provincial Government, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation, and the Premier to immediately reverse the decision to privatize
provincial parks, as they are the people's resource. We feel that this decision
was made in haste without any consultation with the people who own the parks,
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to the minister make some
comments a little bit earlier, I was surprised she was so upset. The minister
was really getting upset. The first thing she made comments on was not on the
parks, it was on privatization. I support privatization of many things, but not
everything. What we have to do is consult the people - especially when you talk
about our own resource - before you privatize. This was pulled out of thin air
at the worst time possible in our 500-year history. Before we even get into the
pros and cons of whether to privatize the parks or not - that is another issue -
the first thing we have to look at is how this came about.
Here we are, about to go into the 500th birthday of this
Province with thousands of people coming to the Province. I would like to add,
the Premier does not have a monopoly on saying he is pleased about this. We are
all pleased - delighted. Down in my district I hear the Matthew is coming
in to La Scie and there are going to be lots of people coming to the District of
Baie Verte. In Green Bay and King's Point they have Come Home Year. As a matter
of fact, out of forty-eight Come Home Years in the Province - or sixty, so far,
I know of sixty that are officially -
AN HON. MEMBER: There are ninety-three to this point.
MR. SHELLEY: - ninety-three - okay, we have gone to
ninety-three now; the minister said sixty the other day, but ninety-three Come
Home Years - eight are in my district alone, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted about
the crowds of people who will be coming. Everybody is delighted about that. The
government does not have the monopoly on being happy that there are people
coming. I am delighted that there are eighty busloads going up the Northern
Peninsula.
That is not the point, Mr. Speaker. What got the people
frustrated at a public meeting the other night - and I will be attending one in
Central Newfoundland on Monday - is, people are upset that this came out of thin
air right on the eve of the biggest celebration in 500 years in this Province.
Why now? That is the question we have to ask, Mr. Speaker. And then the
minister, all of a sudden, related back to the consultation process that the
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board did. Now, I do not know about the
minister, but to everybody I know who attended the consultation meetings of the
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, provincial parks were never ever
mentioned. Now, I can be corrected on that. Maybe the Minister of Finance and
Treasury Board could tell us when he comes back to the House, but as far as I
understand, Mr. Speaker, the privatization of provincial parks was not even
uttered, not one word - or very little, if any, Mr. Speaker. I think Hospitality
Newfoundland and Labrador made one reference to it. But, Mr. Speaker, out of the
whole consultation process, that is very little. There was no consultation on
the privatization of parks.
Another point I would like to make, and it is probably at the
heart of it, is that we talk about the parks and what is in them. Well, let me
tell you, whether the numbers are up or down, the numbers of people who use the
park love what they see. That is their Florida trip, Mr. Speaker, when they go
the parks in the summer. Like a man said the other night at this public meeting,
when he takes his three kids, he said, they go to a different park every summer
across the Province and they enjoy the quiet, pristine environment that they
find at the park. They cannot go to Florida. He said they could not afford to go
to Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia. But I am glad to hear, he takes the
opportunity to go and visit the different parks around this Province.
In my district, Mr. Speaker, the beautiful park at Flatwater,
the tourists come down there and the numbers are up some years and some years
they are down. I take advantage of going in there if not to camp, some days just
to have a cook-up or a boil-up. That is what people enjoy. They do not want to
go into a Wonderland up in Ontario. They go to the park because that is what
they like, and for the amount of money we are talking about in this budget, $1.8
million, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what kind of improvements could have been done to
the park so that the numbers did go up and that we could benefit better from the
resource. But that is something that should be questioned, talked out, consulted
upon, and if we are going to do anything with the parks, involve the people who
use them most, like the gentleman at the public meeting in Torbay the other
night - that is the point he made. He said: I am one of those people - and maybe
there are not a lot around - but I frequently use the parks; my family, my kids
enjoy it.
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter today, by fax, which a lady
from my district sent me. A six-year-old wrote the letter to the minister, and I
am going to give the minister the letter. This six-year-old little girl wrote
and said how much she enjoyed the parks and wanted the minister to keep the
parks open. Now the minister begins by saying we are not going to close the
parks. Mr. Speaker, the next question, which will be a long time in debate, is:
What happens after they privatize? That is what I want to ask the minister. How
can she assure us that they are going to remain parks, they are not going to
(inaudible) or whatever?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the debate has only just begun
and I think it is going to be a long debate.
AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member, on a point of order. Does the hon. member
have a point of order?
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am going to speak to this petition.
MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).
MR. OSBORNE: Okay, I will give the hon. member leave to
speak to this petition, as I have done so already.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: I want to thank the Member for St. John's
South for his co-operation. I would say to the Speaker that I was indeed
standing first but I appreciate the Member for St. John's South giving me an
opportunity to address this petition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the privatization
of our park system is one that has struck a note, a chord, with the people of
this Province for a number of very, very good reasons.
I, along with many of them, was shocked that the Province
would announce this without any consideration of the wishes and desires of the
people of this Province who have paid the cost of building up this park system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, our parks belong to the people of this Province, who at least
have an opportunity to have access to the wilderness that is protected by these
parks. People want to be able to experience the outdoors and the wilderness
without the risks that might be involved in going into the woods holus-bolus,
and perhaps being in the same area where hunters are at work or perhaps other
dangers are lurking, or where it is unregulated wilderness, but they have access
to wilderness in the parks system.
The parks are there, people know that there are wardens on
duty; people know that there is special protection and look-outs for forest
fires, people know that there are wardens available in case there are
emergencies, that they can experience the outdoors with their families,
experience the wilderness and, at the same time, have access to official
government-sponsored, government-provided employees who are trained and
specialized in bringing the outdoors to families, protecting them from
intruders, and protecting them from others who want to disturb their enjoyment
of the outdoors.
They are a very special kind of park, Mr. Speaker. They are
not amusement centres. They are not, by themselves, tourist attractions. They
are opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to enjoy part of their
heritage. That is what they are there for, and the people of this Province
expect to be able to go to them and enjoy that part of the wilderness in various
parts of the Province.
I have been to many provincial parks, Mr. Speaker, and the
one that I remember from a long time ago, which thankfully, at least this
government does not want to privatize immediately - if we wait until next year
they will probably have a go at that one - is the Sir Richard Squires Park. I
remember way back in the 1960s being able to go to that park and see the salmon
jumping the falls there. It was a natural wonder that has remained with me all
my life.
MR. FLIGHT: For a city boy.
MR. HARRIS: For a city boy, as the Member for Windsor -
Buchans said. You have changed your district now. He has left Buchans behind.
After having lived there and represented the district, he has left them behind
and now he has gone to Springdale. The Member for Windsor - Springdale said, for
a city boy to be able to enjoy the wilderness was a remarkable thing, and that
is important. I think, not only city boys and city girls, but everybody in this
Province likes to be able to travel around and enjoy the wilderness through our
park system. So to go ahead and privatize that without any planning, without any
consultation with the people who want to keep this wilderness, is a very, very
negative thing and one that shocks the consciousness of the people of this
Province as to what this government is capable of doing.
What is coming next in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, if this is
what they are doing and announcing before the Budget is even down? Do we have
other things to fear in terms of what this government is prepared to do with our
public services - with our hospitals, with our school system, and with our
public services in general, if this is what the government is prepared to do
with our parks?
Mr. Speaker, I join with the petitioners in condemning the
government's action and ask that government reverse this policy as soon as
possible.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. TULK: Motion No. 1.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from
His Honour The Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,
transmit estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for
the year ending March 31, 1998 by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution Act 1867, I recommend these estimates to the
House of Assembly. A. M. House, Lieutenant-Governor.
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message,
together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.
MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the message, together
with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.
All those in favour, `Aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `Nay'. Carried.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. CANNING: I ask leave to report on behalf of the
Select Committee to the Speech from the Throne.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member has leave.
MR. CANNING: On behalf of the Select Committee appointed
to draft a reply to the speech of His Honour The Lieutenant-Governor, I am
pleased to present the report of the Select Committee as follows:
To His Honour The Lieutenant-Governor, the hon. A. M. House.
May it please Your Honour: We, the Commons of Newfoundland and Labrador, in
legislative session assembled, beg to thank you, Your Honour, for the Gracious
Speech which Your Honour has addressed to this House.
I have signed it, along with the other two members of the
Committee.
On motion, report received.
CHAIR: Bill 2.
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, this is the Interim Supply
Bill. As hon. members know, about this time every year, the House asks
permission to have a similar bill passed. The 1997-1998 Interim Supply Bill, as
presented to the House of Assembly, makes provision for three months' supply,
from April 1, 1997 to June 30, 1997, with a total allocation of $1,019,465,700.
This amount provides for the payment of essential expenditures and to fund
ongoing current and capital programs and projects, inclusive of the payment of
government salaries, including the salaries and allowances of members opposite,
and members on this side of this House, as they go about Her Majesty's business
from time to time - government salaries for seven pay periods, applicable to the
1997-1998 interim supply period. I am quite pleased to hear hon. members' few
brief comments on this bill. I am sure we should have it through within a
half-an-hour if other years are any indication.
MR. TULK: I think, 4:00 p.m. Three minutes.
MR. DECKER: Three minutes.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to rise today to have a few comments. I do
understand, the tradition of the House is that we will speak back and forth on
ten-minute intervals; that has been the general rule and I assume that is the
rule that will apply during the Interim Supply debate.
Mr. Chairman, we note that the government's request is
relatively comparative to what was there last year, with some divisions and
departments a little more and some a little less, than they were last year. I
assume throughout the debate that members on the opposite side - in particular,
when the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is able to get an opportunity to
address this matter, that he will do a comparison between the various
expenditures of last year in the subheadings and the expenditures that are being
requested this year.
We understand the Interim Supply Bill is necessary, because
the government delayed the opening of the House until March 10. In effect, this
is the first day that the House has been really in active session. This is March
13. Traditionally, the House has opened up in the latter part of February, but
for whatever reason, this year it did not open until, as I said, in effect,
March 13, although officially the House opened on Tuesday, March 11.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if we had opened the House a little
earlier, we would probably have had the Budget presented by this time. Then we
could have gone to compare the various expenditures in a total comprehensive
manner. What we are doing today is giving the government, I guess, a bit of a
blank cheque, because we only have the categories listed here. We have no
details offered. We are being asked to approve 25 per cent of the next year's
budget with only the headings shown. Now, Mr. Chairman, for that reason we will
be using some of the time in Interim Supply to debate a wide variety of issues
but we would love to have more breakdown of the details because then we could
get very specific in terms of the kinds of questions that we would like to ask.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we know that this particular government
has failed to address many of the issues out in Newfoundland and Labrador today.
For example, the issue of job shortages, now the underlying premise of the
Minister of Social Services is that there are lots of jobs out there and that
there are people out there who will not go and take jobs that are available.
That is the kind of premise on which I guess all of the Ministers of Social
Services across the country and all of the people connected with the territories
and federal government seem to operate on nowadays.
What I find is that nobody has presented any evidence to show
that those people who receive social assistance help are any more reluctant to
accept jobs than anybody else. So, Mr. Chairman, we operate on assumptions. We
operate on premises and as a consequence we find that the Minister of Social
Services, in this Province today, is saying that you can get your child tax
benefit -with the increase that is coming in - providing that you do this, this
and something else but I am sorry if you are not going to take a job. If you are
not out there trying to take a job that pays you $5.50 an hour than you are not
going to get any benefits. I always thought that poverty centred around the
inability of people to put food on their tables. There are people who say no you
can't have a pair of skates and go to the local arena and participate in
recreation activities like all f your friends in your class or in your
neighbourhood.
So, Mr. Chairman, I find it very disconcerting that a
philosophy prevails in this country and in this Province in particular, that
says that we believe, the minister seems to believe, that there are lots of jobs
out there, good paying jobs, and that the people who receive social services
benefits won't take them. Now I see absolutely no evidence of that, not one
little smidgen of evidence, not even a snippet, not even a little tiny tinge of
evidence to show that people on social services are any more reluctant to take
jobs than anybody else. In fact, the people in my constituency - I have some
people who unfortunately do receive social services benefits - they call me all
the time looking to see if I can help them find a job.
Mr. Chairman, the federal Liberal Government got elected in
1993 on a promise of jobs. In fact, when Kim Campbell said that she believed
that the unemployment rate would stay around 10 per cent for the balance of the
'90s, the Liberal leader, the hon. Jean Chrtien scorned that. He said: no, no,
no, we can't accept that. So he told the people of Canada: you vote for us and
we will give you jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address the issue of jobs. I know
that members opposite don't want to be reminded. It is that one of their
functions is to provide a climate in which people can find meaningful employment
in this Country and in this Province.
Mr. Chairman, the federal Liberals got elected on a promise
of jobs and job strategies. Unfortunately, nearly four years into their mandate,
unemployment in this Province is as high as or higher than it has ever been.
Unemployment in this country is as high as or higher than it has ever been.
Mr. Chairman, in Newfoundland and Labrador we have an
out-migration rate that is a threat to the integrity of our population in rural
Newfoundland. You only have to drive around rural parts of this Province and
notice the number of vacant houses. I spoke to a school principal the other day
in a little, small community, who told me that since last fall he has lost
thirteen students. Unfortunately, in that school there are only 100 students;
and that says something. We are losing our youngest, our brightest, the people
of tomorrow, the people who are going to be in their childbearing years - some
of them are in their childbearing years -we are losing those to other parts of
this Country.
We need in this Province, before the Minister of Social
Services says that she is going to penalize the poor of this Province, before
she behaves more like the Earl of Nottingham and takes from the poor to give to
the rich - in this case she is taking from the poor to give to the poor - we
know that strategy might be a national strategy, but it is based on two false
premises. It is based on the premise that there are lots of jobs out there, and
it is based on the premise that people who receive social assistance, those on
welfare, do not want to go to work. I see no evidence of any of these. I see no
evidence to show that people who are on social assistance refuse to take jobs.
On the other hand, we know that there are already some incentives in place. To
the credit of some of the governments, they have some incentives in place now.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Chairman, to clue up?
CHAIR: I would like, at this time, to announce the
questions for the Late Show, for the Adjournment Debate.
The first question is to the Minister of Social Services,
regarding the Child Tax Credit, from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley.
Question number two is to the Minister of Education regarding
my question on education cuts, and that is from the hon. Member for St. John's
East.
Question number three is to the Acting Minister of Finance
regarding my question on the HST, from the hon. Member for Kilbride.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just take
a moment to clue up. I was addressing the issue of jobs, the lack of jobs, the
issue of out-migration, and the issue of the child tax benefit.
As we have said in this House, the very fabric of our society
is under attack. We know that the Minister of Social Services has been planning
some strategies commonly known as the Strategic Social Plan. We are hopeful that
her strategy in the Strategic Social Plan is a little fairer, a little more
reasonable.
I would finally say to her that when she got elected, she got
elected on a promise for a brighter tomorrow. I would say to you, for the people
who are on social assistance, their brighter tomorrow is not going to be very
bright when they find that they are going to claw back the child tax benefits
the same way that we have reduced the social assistance emergency fund last
year, the famous $61.
We have cut back and cut back and cut back. The people on
social services did not create the situation that we face in this country. They
are the victims; they are the victims of the system. They did not create the
unemployment we have; they did not create the fact that we have so many poor
families. They are the victims of these things and because of that, Mr.
Chairman, I would say to the minister: reconsider, reconsider the strategy that
you have which is basically a strategy that we are going to take money from the
poor to fund a program to assist the working poor. We have not made any
allowance at all for families where people, not only can they not find work,
they can't work.
What do you say to a mother who is receiving social services
because the father in the family has been injured or is ill? We are saying to
that family: no, no, no, no, you can't have your child tax credit because that
will put you over the minimum amount of money that we believe you should be
receiving, therefore that family gets fewer dollars. Ask yourself the question:
Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Is that, what we would like to have done to
ourselves? Basically, if we were to say to ourselves: will we like that done
unto us and you know, if you wouldn't like that done unto you, what gives you
the right to impose that kind of decision on someone else? None of us here would
like to have the money that we receive clawed back and yet, this government, as
legislators, do not find it in their conscience to be compassionate to the very
poorest families in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we want to say to the
Minister of Social Services in particular, that, the minister's mandate is to be
a champion, a champion for the have-nots.
What is happening now is that she has kind of reversed the
role a little bit. The people of this Province expect the Minister of Social
Services to stand up for them, to be their advocate, to be there and to say that
I am going to be there for the very poorest of families. The minister says no.
We were going to give you this amount of money that is going to bring you beyond
some kind of threshold and when you get there we are going to claw it back, we
can't make our poor people too well off; we can't have poor people with the
ability to be able to put, you know, something in the lunch tins for their
children going to school, we can't do that. We can't make sure that they have
good footwear to wear, and God forbid, if a poor child should ever be able to
afford a bicycle or be able to have skates or be in minor hockey because these
things cost money, and so we have developed in this country a social fabric
which is designed right now to keep the poor perpetually poor.
We have institutionalized poverty in this country, and then
of course, my colleague, when he gets a chance to speak in a few moments, he
will be addressing the initiatives of this government on the harmonized sales
tax and what that means to people who are poor. So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of
the children of this Province, we say to hon. members on the other side, in your
caucus speak up for those who are not able to speak for themselves. Speak up for
those who have no voice. Speak up for the young children.
I don't hear the voices of the poorest children being very
well heard in the Caucus of the members opposite. So I say to these people
opposite, think about it. Would you want your grandchildren treated like that?
If you don't want your children and your grandchildren treated the way that the
minister proposes to treat the poorest people in this Province than you have no
right to impose that kind of decision making on anybody else. That is the bottom
line.
Mr. Chairman, with these few comments, my introductory
comments, my preliminary comments, I will conclude and permit my colleague from
Kilbride to address some of the other issues.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. TULK: My member is up now.
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, there is no doubt. One of my most
belligerent constituents sits on the other side of the House, always calling,
always phoning, and always nagging: Can you do this for me? Can you do that for
me? He is the Government House Leader. I tried to explain to him on Sunday night
when he called that he was the Government House Leader and I was on the
Opposition side, Mr. Chairman, but I don't mind. I don't mind at all. I did get
a vote from his house, not two of them but I know I got one of them on February
22, a little over a year ago. I knew that.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Well we had somebody up at your house who
voted for me. Oh definitely sir, definitely. How they got there, how they ended
up living there I don't know. Election Day, we got a call from Chesley Drive.
The Member for Fogo lives there. We got a call from Chesley Drive: Come up, come
on up, we are going to vote for Tories in Kilbride! Right from the minister's
house we got a call. We sent up the driver, picked him up, walked him down, in
he went and voted, he marked his x for the successful candidate in Kilbride, for
the successful candidate.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I know that
the hon. gentleman does not want to mislead the House. I am absolutely certain
of that because my member would not do that. He would not mislead this
Legislature otherwise he would not be worthy to be my member. The truth of the
matter is, that 12 Chesley Drive, in last year's election was all closed down,
basement and the whole works because they were all out in Bonavista North voting
for your constituent.
CHAIR: No point of order.
The hon. the Member for Kilbride.
MR. E. BYRNE: No point of order, exactly.
Well all I can say to the hon. Government House Leader is
that if it was a mistake - it must have been 10 Chesley Drive. I understa